ArticleMolecular psychiatry2026
Computational phenotypes underlying effort-based decision-making and negative symptoms in a transdiagnostic severe mental illness sample.
Article in Molecular psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of monetary versus point-based rewards on effort-cost decision making in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis.Schizophrenia research · 2026Trial
- Translational pathways of oxytocin therapy in schizophrenia: bridging negative symptom domains and neural mechanisms.Translational psychiatry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Effort-based decision-making (EBDM) impairments predict negative symptoms across multiple psychiatric diagnoses. However, it is unclear whether equifinality is present and different disorders reach the same clinical endpoint of negative symptoms via different mechanistic EBDM processes. This study used computational modeling to isolate processes underlying EBDM in a large severe mental illness-spectrum sample. The Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task, negative symptom measures, and neuropsychological tests were administered to 920 participants: schizophrenia (SZ; n = 147), first-episode psychosis (FEP; n = 54), bipolar disorder (n = 53), depressive disorder (n = 37), clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR; n = 231), other clinical (n = 99), and healthy control groups (HC; n = 299). Computational modeling identified whether participants' EBDM behavior was best fit by models indexing full or partial subjective value (use reward magnitude and/or probability) or bias (failure to use reward magnitude and probability). Best fitting models significantly differed across diagnostic groups. SZ and FEP were best fit by the bias model and less likely to use reward magnitude and probability to guide EBDM. The CHR, other clinical, depressive disorder, and HC groups were best fit by the full subjective value model and were more likely to use reward magnitude and probability, while the bipolar disorder group's behavior was more variable. Across groups, participants best fit by the bias model had the greatest negative symptoms and cognitive impairments. Results indicate mood and psychosis-spectrum disorders differentially approach EBDM. Equifinality in the pathway to negative symptoms was not supported; those with difficulty utilizing reward and probability information had the greatest negative symptoms, independent of diagnosis.
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.