Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41023341›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2025

Using machine learning to predict persecutory beliefs based on aetiological models of delusions identified in a systematic literature search.

Saskia Denecke, Felix Strakeljahn, Antonia Bott, Tania M Lincoln

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

4 authors.

Saskia DeneckeClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. Saskia.denecke@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7840-7909
Felix StrakeljahnClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7803-4401
Antonia BottClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4670-2844
Tania M LincolnClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6674-2440

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aetiological models of delusions propose a broad range of predictors. The extent to which these predictors explain variance in persecutory beliefs across the continuum requires systematic investigation. As part of a previous review, 51 aetiological models of delusions were identified in a systematic literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases. Omitting repetitions, 66 unique postulated predictors of delusions and persecutory delusions were extracted from these models, of which 55 met our inclusion criteria and were assessed in a cross-sectional online sample stratified by delusion severity (N = 336) using self-report and behavioural measures. Utilising machine learning (i.e., random forests with nested cross-validation), we investigated the extent to which the model-based predictors explain self-reported persecutory beliefs, identified the most relevant predictors, and investigated their specificity in explaining persecutory beliefs as opposed to delusional beliefs or psychopathological symptoms in general. The machine learning model explained 31% of the variance in persecutory beliefs, 47% of delusions in general, and 77% of general psychopathology. The ten predictors with the most influence on predicting persecutory beliefs included negative beliefs about mistrust, cognitive fusion, ostracism, threat anticipation, generalised negative other beliefs, trust, aberrant salience, hallucinations, stress, and emotion regulation difficulties. The limited explanatory power of the proposed predictors raises questions about the validity of existing models and suggests that crucial predictors specific to persecutory delusions may be missing. Our findings highlight the importance of investigating, refining, and cross-validating theoretical aetiological models to improve our understanding of the aetiology of delusions.

Identifiers

PMID41023341
PMCPMC12479767

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.