3 results
Longitudinal clinical and functional outcome in distinct cognitive subgroups of first-episode psychosis: a cluster analysis
- Priscilla P. Oomen, Marieke J. H. Begemann, Bodyl A. Brand, Lieuwe de Haan, Wim Veling, Sanne Koops, Jim van Os, Filip Smit, P. Roberto Bakker, Nico van Beveren, Nynke Boonstra, Sinan Gülöksüz, Martijn Kikkert, Joran Lokkerbol, Machteld Marcelis, Bram-Sieben Rosema, Franciska de Beer, Shiral S. Gangadin, Chris N. W. Geraets, Erna van ‘t Hag, Yudith Haveman, Inge van der Heijden, Alban E. Voppel, Elske Willemse, Therese van Amelsvoort, Maarten Bak, Albert Batalla, Agaath Been, Marinte van den Bosch, Truus van den Brink, Gunnar Faber, Koen P. Grootens, Martin de Jonge, Rikus Knegtering, Jörg Kurkamp, Amrita Mahabir, Gerdina H. M. Pijnenborg, Tonnie Staring, Natalie Veen, Selene Veerman, Sybren Wiersma, Ellen Graveland, Joelle Hoornaar, Iris E. C. Sommer
-
- Journal:
- Psychological Medicine / Volume 53 / Issue 6 / April 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 19 October 2021, pp. 2317-2327
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Cognitive deficits may be characteristic for only a subgroup of first-episode psychosis (FEP) and the link with clinical and functional outcomes is less profound than previously thought. This study aimed to identify cognitive subgroups in a large sample of FEP using a clustering approach with healthy controls as a reference group, subsequently linking cognitive subgroups to clinical and functional outcomes.
Methods204 FEP patients were included. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using baseline brief assessment of cognition in schizophrenia (BACS). Cognitive subgroups were compared to 40 controls and linked to longitudinal clinical and functional outcomes (PANSS, GAF, self-reported WHODAS 2.0) up to 12-month follow-up.
ResultsThree distinct cognitive clusters emerged: relative to controls, we found one cluster with preserved cognition (n = 76), one moderately impaired cluster (n = 74) and one severely impaired cluster (n = 54). Patients with severely impaired cognition had more severe clinical symptoms at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-up as compared to patients with preserved cognition. General functioning (GAF) in the severely impaired cluster was significantly lower than in those with preserved cognition at baseline and showed trend-level effects at 6- and 12-month follow-up. No significant differences in self-reported functional outcome (WHODAS 2.0) were present.
ConclusionsCurrent results demonstrate the existence of three distinct cognitive subgroups, corresponding with clinical outcome at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-up. Importantly, the cognitively preserved subgroup was larger than the severely impaired group. Early identification of discrete cognitive profiles can offer valuable information about the clinical outcome but may not be relevant in predicting self-reported functional outcomes.
Chapter VI - The English revolution
- Edited by J. S. Bromley
-
- Book:
- The New Cambridge Modern History
- Published online:
- 28 March 2008
- Print publication:
- 02 July 1970, pp 193-222
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Louis XIV, in his conflicts with Spain, the United Provinces, the emperor, and the German princes, had to consider England as a possible factor in them. His relations with Charles II ranged from open hostility to alliance; generally Charles was benevolently neutral. But this was the king's policy: as the reign advanced, English public opinion became increasingly opposed to France. This difference of out look was linked with an enduring subject of constitutional dispute, the relations between king and parliament. The accession of James II brought to England a further and inescapable subject of dispute, the mutually hostile views—on what was the matter of greatest importance to all thinking men—of a Roman Catholic king and a Protestant nation. The religious advanced the constitutional dispute to a point where only force or abject submission could provide a settlement. Nor was it only for England that the outcome would be decisive. The settlement of the dispute was therefore a matter not only of pre-eminent interest to Continental governments, but also in varying degrees for their participation. What was achieved was more than the transfer of a crown from one prince to another, or a decisive change in the grouping of the European powers, or the emergence of Great Britain as a major power in world politics, or a new polarization of European culture. It was also the permanent establishment of effective constitutional government, and of the general principle that government exists for the governed.
When Charles died unexpectedly on 16 February 1685 the kingly power appeared to have attained a preponderance in the State such as it had not held since the coming of the Stuarts. This was in part due to Charles's efforts to provide efficient government. For the work of administration, so far as it then extended, he had brought together a body of able men; he had also built up a standing army strong enough to protect the government in all ordinary emergencies. These were advances such as any government must have desired. Charles, however, went much further.
The Great Seal of James II: A Reply to Sir Hilary Jenkinson1
- E. S. de Beer
-
- Journal:
- The Antiquaries Journal / Volume 42 / Issue 1 / March 1962
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 29 November 2011, pp. 81-90
- Print publication:
- March 1962
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The conventional story of the fate of James II's Great Seal, that he cast it into the Thames in the course of his flight from Whitehall in the early hours of 11th December 1688, was challenged by the late Sir Hilary Jenkinson in an enthralling article in the Antiquaries Journal in 1943. He perceived that in design and size the counterseal used by William and Mary for their Great Seal (1689) is wellnigh identical with that used by James II, except that a figure of Mary mounted on horseback has been crudely intruded into it; the inscription is new. With this in mind he examined the statements of a number of contemporary writers and later historians about what happened to James's Great Seal and, finding a number of discrepancies among them, argued that the conventional story is extremely doubtful, if not false, and that William and Mary made use of James's counterseal—the actual matrix—with comparatively slight alterations. In a final section he noted the resemblance between impressions of both seal and counterseal of James II and those of William III's seal and counterseal (1695), and suggested, with only a slight reservation (‘I am afraid we cannot say with absolute certainty that the actual matrices engraved by John Roettier in 1685 were still in existence in 1702’), that William was now using both of James's matrices. The suggestion appears as a statement of fact, with no reservation, in Sir Hilary's Guide to the Seals in the Public Record Office, 1954.