Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27569526›Full record

Trial reportThe lancet. Psychiatry2016

Multisite prediction of 4-week and 52-week treatment outcomes in patients with first-episode psychosis: a machine learning approach.

Nikolaos Koutsouleris, René S Kahn, Adam M Chekroud, Stefan Leucht, Peter Falkai, Thomas Wobrock, Eske M Derks, Wolfgang W Fleischhacker, Alkomiet Hasan

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The lancet. Psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 103 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Learning Outcomes That Maximally Differentiate Psychiatric Treatments.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nikolaos KoutsoulerisDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany. Electronic address: Nikolaos.Koutsouleris@med.uni-muenchen.de.
René S KahnDepartment of Psychiatry, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Adam M ChekroudDepartment of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA.
Stefan LeuchtDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technical University, Munich, Germany.
Peter FalkaiDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany.
Thomas WobrockCentre of Mental Health, County Hospitals Darmstadt-Dieburg, Germany; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Eske M DerksDepartment of Psychiatry, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Wolfgang W FleischhackerDepartment of Biological Psychiatry, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Alkomiet HasanDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAt present, no tools exist to estimate objectively the risk of poor treatment outcomes in patients with first-episode psychosis. Such tools could improve treatment by informing clinical decision-making before the commencement of treatment. We tested whether such a tool could be successfully built and validated using routinely available, patient-reportable information.

methodsBy applying machine learning to data from 334 patients in the European First Episode Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform number, ISRCTN68736636), we developed a tool to predict poor versus good treatment outcome (Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF] score ≥65 vs GAF <65, respectively) after 4 weeks and 52 weeks of treatment. To enable the unbiased estimation of the predictive system's generalisability to new patients, we used repeated nested cross-validation to prevent information leaking between patients used for training and validating the models. In pursuit of everyday clinical applicability, we retrained the 4-week outcome predictor with only the top ten predictors of the pooled prediction system and then tested this tool in 108 independent patients with 4-week outcome labels. Discontinuation and readmission to hospital events in patients with predicted poor versus good outcomes were assessed with Kaplan-Meier log-rank analyses, whereas generalised linear mixed-effects models were used to investigate the GAF-based predictions against several clinically meaningful outcome indicators, including treatment adherence, symptom remission, and quality of life.

findingsThe generalisability of our outcome predictions were estimated with cross-validation (test-fold balanced accuracy [BAC] of 75·0% for 4-week outcomes and 73·8% for and 52-week outcomes), and leave-site-out validation across 44 European sites (BAC of 72·1% for 4-week outcomes and 71·1% for 52-week outcomes). We identified a smaller group of ten predictors still providing a BAC of 71·7% in 108 patients never used for model discovery. Unemployment, poor education, functional deficits, and unmet psychosocial needs predicted both endpoints, whereas previous depressive episodes, male sex, and suicidality additionally predicted poor 1-year outcomes. 52-week predictions identified patients at risk for symptom persistence, non-adherence to treatment, readmission to hospital and poor quality of life. Specifically among these patients, amisulpride and olanzapine showed superior efficacy versus haloperidol, quetiapine, and ziprasidone.

interpretationOur results suggest that prognostic models operating on brief, patient-reportable pre-treatment data might provide useful insight into individualised outcome trajectories, optimising treatment selection, and targeted clinical trial designs. To embed these tools into real-world care, replication is needed in external first-episode samples with overlapping variables, which are not available in the field at present.

fundingThe European Group for Research in Schizophrenia.

Indexed as

AdultClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansMachine LearningMalePsychotic DisordersTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

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.