Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36946486›Full record

ReviewCurrent neuropharmacology2024

The Translational Future of Stress Neurobiology and Psychosis Vulnerability: A Review of the Evidence.

Alexis E Cullen, Javier Labad, Dominic Oliver, Adam Al-Diwani, Amedeo Minichino, Paolo Fusar-Poli

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current neuropharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Exposotypes in psychotic disorders.Scientific reports · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Exploring causal mechanisms of psychosis risk.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Alexis E CullenDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Javier LabadCIBERSAM, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain.
Dominic OliverDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Adam Al-DiwaniDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Amedeo MinichinoEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-Detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
Paolo Fusar-PoliEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-Detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
University of Oxford · GBKing's College London · GBMaresme Health Consortium · ESUniversity of Pavia · ITWarneford Hospital · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 215793/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychosocial stress is a well-established risk factor for psychosis, yet the neurobiological mechanisms underlying this relationship have yet to be fully elucidated. Much of the research in this field has investigated hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function and immuno-inflammatory processes among individuals with established psychotic disorders. However, as such studies are limited in their ability to provide knowledge that can be used to develop preventative interventions, it is important to shift the focus to individuals with increased vulnerability for psychosis (i.e., high-risk groups). In the present article, we provide an overview of the current methods for identifying individuals at high-risk for psychosis and review the psychosocial stressors that have been most consistently associated with psychosis risk. We then describe a network of interacting physiological systems that are hypothesised to mediate the relationship between psychosocial stress and the manifestation of psychotic illness and critically review evidence that abnormalities within these systems characterise highrisk populations. We found that studies of high-risk groups have yielded highly variable findings, likely due to (i) the heterogeneity both within and across high-risk samples, (ii) the diversity of psychosocial stressors implicated in psychosis, and (iii) that most studies examine single markers of isolated neurobiological systems. We propose that to move the field forward, we require well-designed, largescale translational studies that integrate multi-domain, putative stress-related biomarkers to determine their prognostic value in high-risk samples. We advocate that such investigations are highly warranted, given that psychosocial stress is undoubtedly a relevant risk factor for psychotic disorders.

Indexed as

NeurobiologyPsychotic DisordersBiomarkersHumansHypothalamo-Hypophyseal SystemPituitary-Adrenal SystemBiomarkersclinical high-riskcortisolcytokinesgut-microbiomeprecision psychiatry.Schizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID36946486
PMCPMC10845079
OpenAlexW4353020373

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.