Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives \nFormal thought disorder has been regarded as an essential symptom in the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. The aim of our study was to present gender differences in the formal thought disorder among patients with schizophrenia. \n \nMethods \nWe tested for potential gender differences in the formal thought disorder among 167 inpatients with schizophrenia (86 men and 81 women). The Scale for the Assessment of Thought, Language and Communication (TLC scale), Clinical Language Disorder Rating Scale (CLANG), Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Young Mania Rating Scale, and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia were used for evaluation of thought disorder, language disorder, overall symptoms, manic symptoms, and depressive symptoms, respectively. Using the analysis of covariance for continuous variables and logistic regression analysis for discrete variables, gender differences in the formal thought disorder were evaluated. \n \nResults \nAfter adjusting for the effects of marital status and religious affiliation, men showed a significantly higher score on the perseveration (TLC scale ; F=7.538, p=0.007), blocking (TLC scale ; F=8.956, p=0.003), stilted speech (TLC scale ; F=6.921, p=0.009), lack of details (CLANG ; F=7.375, p=0.007), dysfluency (CLANG ; F=21.250, p<0.0001), and dysarthria (CLANG ; F=31.198, p<0.0001) items than women. \n \nConclusion \nOur study has a virtue of exploring gender differences in the formal thought disorder in patients with schizophrenia. Based on our findings, further study might enlighten regarding neural correlates (namely, cerebral asymmetry/lateralization) for gender-differed patterns of the formal thought disorder in patients with schizophrenia.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it