Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27923525›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia research2017

Using clinical information to make individualized prognostic predictions in people at ultra high risk for psychosis.

Andrea Mechelli, Ashleigh Lin, Stephen Wood, Patrick McGorry, Paul Amminger, Stefania Tognin, Philip McGuire, Jonathan Young, Barnaby Nelson, Alison Yung

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia research, 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
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea MechelliDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: a.mechelli@kcl.ac.uk.
Ashleigh LinTelethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Subiaco, Western Australia 6008, Australia.
Stephen WoodDepartment of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne & Melbourne Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Patrick McGorryOrygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia; The Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Paul AmmingerOrygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia; The Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Stefania TogninDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Philip McGuireDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Jonathan YoungDepartment of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Barnaby NelsonOrygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia; The Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Alison YungInstitute of Brain, Behaviour, and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Greater Manchester West NHS Mental Health Foundation Trust, Prestwich, Manchester, UK.
King's College London · GBOrygen Youth Health · AUMental Health Foundation · GBThe Kids Research Institute Australia · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council G1100574Medical Research Council MR/K013599/1Medical Research Council MR/N026063/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies have reported an association between psychopathology and subsequent clinical and functional outcomes in people at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis. This has led to the suggestion that psychopathological information could be used to make prognostic predictions in this population. However, because the current literature is based on inferences at group level, the translational value of the findings for everyday clinical practice is unclear. Here we examined whether psychopathological information could be used to make individualized predictions about clinical and functional outcomes in people at UHR. Participants included 416 people at UHR followed prospectively at the Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation (PACE) Clinic in Melbourne, Australia. The data were analysed using Support Vector Machine (SVM), a supervised machine learning technique that allows inferences at the individual level. SVM predicted transition to psychosis with a specificity of 60.6%, a sensitivity of 68.6% and an accuracy of 64.6% (p<0.001). In addition, SVM predicted functioning with a specificity of 62.5%, a sensitivity of 62.5% and an accuracy of 62.5% (p=0.008). Prediction of transition was driven by disorder of thought content, attenuated positive symptoms and functioning, whereas functioning was best predicted by attention disturbances, anhedonia-asociality and disorder of thought content. These results indicate that psychopathological information allows individualized prognostic predictions with statistically significant accuracy. However, this level of accuracy may not be sufficient for clinical translation in real-world clinical practice. Accuracy might be improved by combining psychopathological information with other types of data using a multivariate machine learning framework.

Indexed as

Support Vector MachineAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrognosisPsychotic DisordersSensitivity and SpecificityVictoriaYoung AdultClinical outcomeFunctional outcomePsychosisSupport vector machineUltra-high risk

Identifiers

PMID27923525
PMCPMC5477095
OpenAlexW2559603325

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.