Schizophrenia, An Illness with Bad Outcome: Myth or Reality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Different myths about schizophrenia endorsed by clinicians maintain the pessimism about outcome thus reducing chances of improvement. There are no recent North American studies on the long-term outcome of first-episode schizophrenia to clarify if these beliefs are myths or reality. Our study describes the long-term outcome (10 to 16 years) of a first-episode schizophrenia incidence cohort (n = 142) in a Canadian urban centre between 1983 and 1999. METHOD: Clinical and social functioning at different time points were assessed retrospectively from medical files of a catchment area hospital in Montreal. Service use and deaths were noted from provincial databases of physician billings, hospitalization, and vital statistics. RESULTS: Hospitalization days decreased considerably after the first year, with a small minority still needing it episodically after 4 years. Marital and occupational status were generally stable over time, but autonomy in living arrangements worsened. Thirty-three percent of subjects quit the Catchment Area Specialized Psychiatric Services. This group showed better social functioning while they were followed, were hospitalized less afterwards, and had fewer suicides, therefore indicating a better outcome for them. At the end of our study, 15% of the patients still alive were well enough to function without seeking medical help and 25% were not taking antipsychotic medication. Better outcome was predicted by older age at admission, being married, higher premorbid autonomy in living arrangements, and female sex. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of first-episode schizophrenia patients achieve moderate long-term outcome, and the stability of global functioning is more frequent than deterioration, as shown in most industrialized countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".