ArticleBMC psychology2026
Exploring niacin skin flushing response in psychological screening of college students.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe psychological well-being of college students is a growing concern due to its impact on personal and academic outcomes. Traditional symptom-based scales for psychological health screening are often subjective and prone to misclassification. The niacin skin flushing response (NSFR), a physiologically grounded biomarker, has shown promise in identifying psychiatric conditions. This study explored the application of NSFR as an objective tool for psychological health screening among college students.
methodsWe recruited 633 college freshmen who completed the “College Student Mental Health Crisis Intervention Scale” and underwent the NSFR test. Students identified as at-risk by the scale (n = 191) were further evaluated by psychological counselors and classified as “Counselor-Assessed Normal” (CA-Normal, n = 164) or “Counselor-Assessed AtRisk” (CA-AtRisk, n = 27). NSFR responses, including flushing area and EC50 values, were compared between groups using multiple linear regression models adjusted for covariates. Logistic regression and ROC analysis were employed to assess the discriminative efficacy of NSFR.
resultsCA-AtRisk students exhibited blunted NSFR, with significantly higher EC50 values (p = 0.017) and smaller flushing areas at 4, 5, 7, and 8 min (p < 0.05) compared to CA-Normal students. The sum of flushing scores at 4 min with 60 mM AMN demonstrated the best discrimination efficiency (sensitivity = 0.444, specificity = 0.829). Combining NSFR with the scale doubled the positive predictive value (PPV) from 0.141 to 0.300.
conclusionsNSFR shows potential as an objective adjunct tool for psychological health screening in college students, improving the accuracy of risk identification. Its integration into screening protocols could optimize resource allocation, particularly in settings with limited psychological health services. Further research is needed to validate these findings in larger and more diverse populations.
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.