Can We Detect the Undetected? Comparing the Prodromes of Individuals with First Episode Psychosis Detected and Undetected by Clinical High-Risk for Psychosis Services: An Electronic Health Record Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: The majority of first episode psychosis (FEP) patients are undetected (DET-) by clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR-P) services prior to onset and therefore do not receive preventive care for psychosis. We compared features of the psychosis prodrome (symptoms and substance use) between DET- and FEP patients detected by CHR-P services (DET+) to determine whether they share a common prodromal phase. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Reporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely Collected Health Data statement-compliant electronic health record cohort study. We extracted 65 prodromal features (symptoms and substance use before FEP onset) using natural language processing to assess the presence, duration, and first presentation of the psychosis prodrome and occurrences of features across the prodrome. Duration and feature occurrences were compared between DET+ and DET- individuals using Mann-Whitney U tests and Wilcoxon Effect Size, while presence and first presentation were compared using logistic regression. STUDY RESULTS: A total of 1545 FEP patients (n = 119 DET+ [mean age 28.7 years; SD = 9.4; 61.6% male]) were included. There were no significant differences in the presence (DET + =85.0%, DET- = 85.6%, P = .83) or duration (DET + =18.8 months, DET- = 18.4 months, P = .89) of the psychosis prodrome. There were no significant differences in first presentation of psychotic symptoms between groups (Pcorr > .05). Frequency of occurrences of thought broadcasting (r = 0.07, Pcorr = .04) was higher and hostility (r = 0.08, Pcorr = .04) lower in DET+ compared to DET- across the prodrome, though effect sizes were small. CONCLUSIONS: DET+ and DET- individuals experience similar psychosis prodromes prior to FEP onset. DET- individuals can likely be identified earlier if detection strategies are improved.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".