MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417323994 · doi:10.1038/s41537-025-00712-z

Analysis of conceptual overlap among formal thought disorder rating scales in psychosis: a systematic semantic synthesis

2025· article· en· W4417323994 on OpenAlexafffund
Alban Voppel, Silvia Ciampelli, Tilo Kircher, Peter F. Liddle, Raffael Massuda, Frederike Stein, Sunny X. Tang, Manaan Kar Ray, Sohee Park, Lena Palaniyappan

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern UniversityMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthVon-Behring-Röntgen-StiftungCanada First Research Excellence FundBrain and Behavior Research FoundationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsPsychopathologyScale (ratio)Thought disorderRating scaleSemantics (computer science)Similarity (geometry)Dimension (graph theory)Identification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring Formal Thought Disorder (FTD), a common, cross-diagnosed symptom dimension across mental disorders, is plagued by numerous inconsistencies. Clinicians use either FTD-specific scales or items from generic scales. While these tools are based on extensive clinical observations, they suffer from inconsistent terminology. Different scales may use the same term for distinct concepts or different terms for the same concept. This lack of conceptual standardization prevents the identification of underlying FTD subconstructs. By using natural language processing, we compared the definitions, labeling and overlap of FTD symptoms, i.e., the definitions of single items, across psychopathological scales. We used a three-pronged validation approach to analyze semantic clusters of single definitions of FTD scale psychopathological items. First, we used sentence-BERT to divide 30 Thought and Language Disorder scale (TALD) items into positive or negative FTD clusters, validating this approach by checking for correspondence with published factor-analytic divisions (approach validation). Second, we created a sparse item-to-item similarity matrix from 103 items across seven scales to identify semantically converging cross-scale FTD items; a clinician-researcher described the resulting four clusters, and we compared our automated classification with that of six blinded experts to establish expert-machine semantic correspondence. Finally, we analyzed data from 98 participants (49 healthy controls and 49 schizophrenia/affective psychosis), identifying the highest-correlating Clinical Language Disorder Scale (CLANG) item for each Thought, Language and Communication (TLC) scale item and mapping these to our BERT-derived clusters to establish data-level correspondence. When assigning TALD items to BERT-derived positive or negative FTD groupings, we observed a 73% match with prior factor analyses. The BERT-informed clustering of cross-scale items highlighted four coherent FTD groupings: (1) muddled communication & incomprehension, (2) abrupt topic shifts, (3) inconsistent narrative structure, (4) restricted speech. Expert raters showed moderate-to-high overlap (Fleiss' kappa = 0.617) with computational clusters. A binomial test indicated that at the level of individual participants, correlations among CLANG-TLC item pairs were significantly more likely than chance to fall into the expected semantic cluster (p < 0.001). FTD rating scales measure overlapping, semantically related constructs that drive item-level correlations. Semantic clustering acts as a novel method to harmonize multi-scale data and pinpoint discrepancies between expert and machine classifications. Computational linguistics has the potential to improve consistency across rating scales especially when measuring complex constructs such as FTD.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.179
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.179
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0290.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophreniaSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207