Determinants of real-world functioning in first-episode psychosis patients receiving 4 weeks of amisulpride treatment: findings from the multinational OPTiMiSE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Identifying factors that promote real-world functioning in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) may guide the development of effective interventions. OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with real-world functioning in FEP patients after 4 weeks of amisulpride treatment. METHODS: A total of 354 FEP patients were included. Baseline assessments covered socio-demographic and clinical data, the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and the Calgary Depression Rating Scale. Real-world functioning was assessed at week 4 using the Personal and Social Performance scale. RESULTS: After 4 weeks, 69.2 % of patients were in remission, while 27.7 % showed good real-world functioning. More years of education (estimator = 0.54) and lower baseline levels of depressive (estimator = -0.37) and amotivational symptoms (estimator = -0.79) were protective factors for general functioning. Non-remission at week 4 (estimator = 15.33) significantly increased the risk of poor functioning. Amotivation and non-remission were also linked to worse outcomes in work and social relationships areas. Regarding self-care, more years of education (estimator = -0.04), fewer depressive symptoms (estimator = 0.03), and not using cannabis (estimator = -0.19) were protective. For aggressive behavior functioning, higher levels of diminished expression (estimator = -0.03), lower levels of depressive symptoms (estimator = 0.02) and positive symptoms (estimator = 0.02), as well as remission at week 4 (estimator = -0.37), were protective. CONCLUSION: Negative symptoms, specifically amotivation and diminished expression, play a key role in real-world functioning. Amotivation impacts general and domain-specific functioning, while positive symptoms and diminished expression mainly affect aggressive behaviors area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".