Cognition, Function, and Disability in Patients with Schizophrenia: A Review of Longitudinal Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".