Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27697078›Full record

ArticlePsychological medicine2017

Longitudinal alterations in motivational salience processing in ultra-high-risk subjects for psychosis.

A Schmidt, M Antoniades, P Allen, A Egerton, C A Chaddock, S Borgwardt, P Fusar-Poli, J P Roiser, O Howes, P McGuire

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Reinforcement learning abnormalities in the attenuated psychosis syndrome and first episode psychosis.European neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

A SchmidtDepartment of Psychosis Studies,King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,London,UK.
M AntoniadesDepartment of Psychosis Studies,King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,London,UK.
P AllenDepartment of Psychosis Studies,King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,London,UK.
A EgertonDepartment of Psychosis Studies,King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,London,UK.
C A ChaddockDepartment of Psychosis Studies,King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,London,UK.
S BorgwardtDepartment of Psychosis Studies,King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,London,UK.
P Fusar-PoliDepartment of Psychosis Studies,King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,London,UK.
J P RoiserInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London,London,UK.
O HowesDepartment of Psychosis Studies,King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,London,UK.
P McGuireDepartment of Psychosis Studies,King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience,London,UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0700995Medical Research Council MC_U120097115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImpairments in the attribution of salience are thought to be fundamental to the development of psychotic symptoms and the onset of psychotic disorders. The aim of the present study was to explore longitudinal alterations in salience processing in ultra-high-risk subjects for psychosis.

methodA total of 23 ultra-high-risk subjects and 13 healthy controls underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging at two time points (mean interval of 17 months) while performing the Salience Attribution Test to assess neural responses to task-relevant (adaptive salience) and task-irrelevant (aberrant salience) stimulus features.

resultsAt presentation, high-risk subjects were less likely than controls to attribute salience to relevant features, and more likely to attribute salience to irrelevant stimulus features. These behavioural differences were no longer evident at follow-up. When attributing salience to relevant cue features, ultra-high-risk subjects showed less activation than controls in the ventral striatum at both baseline and follow-up. Within the high-risk sample, amelioration of abnormal beliefs over the follow-up period was correlated with an increase in right ventral striatum activation during the attribution of salience to relevant cue features.

conclusionsThese findings confirm that salience processing is perturbed in ultra-high-risk subjects for psychosis, that this is linked to alterations in ventral striatum function, and that clinical outcomes are related to longitudinal changes in ventral striatum function during salience processing.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMotivationPsychomotor PerformancePsychotic DisordersRewardRiskVentral StriatumVisual PerceptionYoung AdultClinical high risk for psychosislongitudinal studiesmotivational saliencepsychosisventral striatum

Identifiers

PMID27697078
PMCPMC5216461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.