Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24914177›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin2015

Detecting the psychosis prodrome across high-risk populations using neuroanatomical biomarkers.

Nikolaos Koutsouleris, Anita Riecher-Rössler, Eva M Meisenzahl, Renata Smieskova, Erich Studerus, Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic, Sebastian von Saldern, Carlos Cabral, Maximilian Reiser, Peter Falkai and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A Review of Potential Neuroimaging Biomarkers of Schizophrenia-Risk.Journal of psychiatry and brain science · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nikolaos KoutsoulerisDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany; nikolaos.koutsouleris@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Anita Riecher-RösslerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland;
Eva M MeisenzahlDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany;
Renata SmieskovaDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland;
Erich StuderusDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland;
Lana Kambeitz-IlankovicDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany;
Sebastian von SaldernDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany;
Carlos CabralDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany;
Maximilian ReiserDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany.
Peter FalkaiDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany;
Stefan BorgwardtDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland;

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To date, the MRI-based individualized prediction of psychosis has only been demonstrated in single-site studies. It remains unclear if MRI biomarkers generalize across different centers and MR scanners and represent accurate surrogates of the risk for developing this devastating illness. Therefore, we assessed whether a MRI-based prediction system identified patients with a later disease transition among 73 clinically defined high-risk persons recruited at two different early recognition centers. Prognostic performance was measured using cross-validation, independent test validation, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Transition outcomes were correctly predicted in 80% of test cases (sensitivity: 76%, specificity: 85%, positive likelihood ratio: 5.1). Thus, given a 54-month transition risk of 45% across both centers, MRI-based predictors provided a 36%-increase of prognostic certainty. After stratifying individuals into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups using the predictor's decision score, the high- vs low-risk groups had median psychosis-free survival times of 5 vs 51 months and transition rates of 88% vs 8%. The predictor's decision function involved gray matter volume alterations in prefrontal, perisylvian, and subcortical structures. Our results support the existence of a cross-center neuroanatomical signature of emerging psychosis enabling individualized risk staging across different high-risk populations. Supplementary results revealed that (1) potentially confounding between-site differences were effectively mitigated using statistical correction methods, and (2) the detection of the prodromal signature considerably depended on the available sample sizes. These observations pave the way for future multicenter studies, which may ultimately facilitate the neurobiological refinement of risk criteria and personalized preventive therapies based on individualized risk profiling tools.

Indexed as

Prodromal SymptomsAdultBiomarkersFemaleGray MatterHumansMachine LearningMaleMulticenter Studies as TopicPattern Recognition, AutomatedPrognosisPsychotic DisordersRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultBiomarkerscross-centerindividualized risk stratificationmachine learningneuroanatomical biomarker

Identifiers

PMID24914177
PMCPMC4332937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.