MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414181545 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.784

Examination of Theory of Mind, Cognitive Functions and Acute Period Clinical Features in Patients Diagnosed With Substance Use-Related Psychotic Disorder

2025· article· en· W4414181545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Çağlar Yıldırım, Nabi Zorlu, Başak Bağcı, Aslıhan Bilge Bektaş

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisCognitionSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Stroop effectDepression (economics)Positive and Negative Syndrome ScaleDiagnosis of schizophreniaSocial cognitionPost-hoc analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction There are recent studies examining the cognitive functions, depressive symptoms, social cognitive characteristics (Terms of Theory of Mind) and acute symptoms of patients with substance-induced psychosis, as well as varying effects of different substances on development of psychosis (Beckmann et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatr CNA.2020;131-143). Objectives It was aimed to examine sociodemographic characteristics, clinical symptoms in acute psychotic period, cognitive functions, social cognition characteristics of hospitalized patients diagnosed with substance related psychosis; compare the severity of clinical symptoms, improvement in acute period symptoms with treatment, cognitive functions and social cognitions according to substance (methamphetamine, cannabis, polydrug). Methods 34 hospitalized patients in acute psychotic episode diagnosed with Substance-Induced Psychosis according to DSM-5 were included in study. Socidemographic Data Form, Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, Stroop Test, Calgary Schizophrenia Depression Scale and every 3 days during the treatment PANSS (Positive Negative Syndrome Scale) were administered. Statistical analyses done with R program. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare numerical variables between groups. For the significant differences between groups, Bonferroni correction was applied in post hoc analyses. P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. Chi-square test was used to analyze categorical variables. Results It was determined that drug-induced psychosis patients were mostly male, unemployed, young adults, started using drugs before the age of 18, lived in irregular urban areas. Methamphetamine, cannabis and polydrug-related psychosis were compared; There was no difference in cognitive functions and social cognition characteristics between all groups. At the end of treatment, it was observed that the rate of improvement in positive and negative symptoms and the decrease in PANSS scores were greatest in methamphetamine group, there was no difference between cannabis and polydrug groups. We found that PANSS and negative symptom severity before starting treatment were not different between methamphetamine and cannabis, and initial positive symptoms were more severe in methamphetamine than cannabis. Conclusions Methamphetamine group showed greater improvements in positive and negative symptoms and total PANSS scores compared to cannabis and polydrug. The fact that there was less improvement in cannabis group than in methamphetamine group supports the data in the literature identifying the relationship between cannabis and chronic psychosis (D’Souza et al, The World Journal of BP, 2022, 719–742). No difference was found between social cognitions and cognitive functions of 3 groups. Keywords Drug Induced Psychosis, Methamphetamine, Cannabis, Theory of Mind. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean PsychiatrySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207