The Significance of At-Risk Symptoms for Psychosis in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The early detection and treatment of people at risk for psychosis is currently regarded as a promising strategy in fighting the devastating consequences of psychotic disorders. Currently, the 2 most broadly used sets of at-risk criteria, that is, ultra-high risk (UHR) and basic symptom criteria, were developed mainly in adult samples. We review the data regarding the presence and relevance of at-risk symptoms for psychosis in children and adolescents. The few existing studies suggest that attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS) and brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms (BLIPS) do have some clinical relevance in young adolescents from the general population. Nevertheless, their differentiation from atypical psychotic symptoms or an emerging schizotypal personality disorder, as well as their stability and predictive accuracy for psychosis, are still unclear. Further, standard interviews for UHR criteria do not define a minimum age for the assessment of APS and BLIPS or guidelines as to when and how to include information from parents. APS and basic symptoms may be predictive of conversion to psychosis in help-seeking young adolescents. Nevertheless, the rate and timing, and thus the required observation time, need further study. Moreover, no study has yet addressed the issue of how to treat children and adolescents presenting with at-risk symptoms and criteria. Further research is urgently needed to examine if current at-risk criteria and approaches have to be tailored to the special needs of children and adolescents. A preliminary rationale for how to deal with at-risk symptoms for psychosis in clinical practice is provided.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".