Catatonia in first-episode psychosis: prevalence and psychopathological association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background First-episode psychosis (FEP) is a critical phase in psychotic disorders where early intervention significantly influences long-term outcomes. Catatonia, characterised by motor, behavioural, and psychological abnormalities, is an under-recognised aspect of FEP. Aims This study examines catatonia prevalence in affective and non-affective FEP, its role as a severity indicator across psychopathological domains, its correlations with other symptoms and its association with clinical syndromes. Method A cross-sectional study was conducted with 58 FEP patients (38 females, 20 males) aged 15–55 years. Of those, 40 were antipsychotic-naive, and 18 had minimal prior antipsychotic exposure. Participants were recruited from acute psychiatric units. Catatonia was assessed using the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS), while psychopathology was evaluated with the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), Calgary Depression Scale (CDS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, t-tests, X2 tests, and multivariable regression using SPSS version 25 for Windows. Results Catatonic signs were identified in 22.4% of cases based on the Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument (BFCSI) criteria (BFCSI-positive group, defined as ≥2 signs present for over 24 h), indicating potential catatonia. Prevalence varied by criteria: 13.8% (DSM-IV), 10.3% (Fink and Taylor), 10.38% (ICD-11) and 8.6% (DSM-5). Catatonic patients had more years of education and significantly higher PANSS totals, Emsley negative, disorganised, excited, and anxiety scores. Catatonic signs moderately correlated with Emsley disorganised scores. Regression analysis identified PANSS total and Emsley domain scores as significant predictors of catatonia severity. Conclusions Catatonia is notably prevalent in FEP and associated with severe psychopathology, particularly in negative and disorganised domains. These findings underscore the importance of improving recognition of catatonia in early psychosis. Larger longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these findings and explore treatment implications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".