ArticleScientific reports2024
Cognitive subgroups of affective and non-affective psychosis show differences in medication and cortico-subcortical brain networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Two Sides of One Coin: Affective Psychosis vs. Non-Affective Psychosis in Teenagers.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cognitive deficits are prevalent in individuals with psychosis and are associated with neurobiological changes, potentially serving as an endophenotype for psychosis. Using the HCP-Early-Psychosis-dataset (n = 226), we aimed to investigate cognitive subtypes (deficit/intermediate/spared) through data-driven clustering in affective (AP) and non-affective psychosis patients (NAP) and controls (HC). We explored differences between three clusters in symptoms, cognition, medication, and grey matter volume. Applying principal component analysis, we selected features for clustering. Features that explained most variance were scores for intelligence, verbal recognition and comprehension, auditory attention, working memory, reasoning and executive functioning. Fuzzy K-Means clustering on those features revealed that the subgroups significantly varied in cognitive impairment, clinical symptoms, and, importantly, also in medication and grey matter volume in fronto-parietal and subcortical networks. The spared cluster (86%HC, 37%AP, 17%NAP) exhibited unimpaired cognition, lowest symptoms/medication, and grey matter comparable to controls. The deficit cluster (4%HC, 10%AP, 47%NAP) had impairments across all domains, highest symptoms scores/medication dosage, and pronounced grey matter alterations. The intermediate deficit cluster (11%HC, 54%AP, 36%NAP) showed fewer deficits than the second cluster, but similar symptoms/medication/grey matter to the spared cluster. Controlling for medication, cognitive scores correlated with grey matter changes and negative symptoms across all patients. Our findings generally emphasize the interplay between cognition, brain structure, symptoms, and medication in AP and NAP, and specifically suggest a possible mediating role of cognition, highlighting the potential of screening cognitive changes to aid tailoring treatments and interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.