MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W93996663 · doi:10.1177/070674371405900104

Cognition, Function, and Disability in Patients with Schizophrenia: A Review of Longitudinal Studies

2014· review· en· W93996663 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Tarek K. Rajji, Dielle Miranda, Benoit H. Mulsant

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAdministration for Community LivingW. Garfield Weston FoundationGarfield Weston FoundationBrain Research Foundation
KeywordsCognitionSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyLongitudinal studyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to review longitudinal studies assessing the impact of cognition on function in patients with schizophrenia. PubMed and Scholars Portal were searched using search terms related to schizophrenia, cognition, function, and longitudinal studies. Some functional abilities have been studied more than others. Some studies suggest that the impact of cognition on function depends on the severity of baseline cognitive deficits. Other studies suggest that the impact of cognition on function depend on what phase of the illness the patient is in or what stage in that particular function the patient is involved in. Finally, few studies assessed interactions between cognition and other aspects of schizophrenia in predicting function, such as functional capacity, insight, motivation, and negative symptoms. More longitudinal and comprehensive studies are needed. A focus on community living is of high public significance as patients with schizophrenia continue to grow old. Future studies should also focus on the longitudinal interactions between cognition and other dimensions of schizophrenia as well as on the biological factors that underlie these interactions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations128
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207