ReviewSchizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
Rethinking language, cognition and assessment in psychosis: How bilingualism challenges psychiatry and how natural language processing can help.
Review in Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Language plays a central role in the assessment of individuals with psychosis, from taking a medical history to evaluating cognitive function. However, speaking multiple languages can significantly influence linguistic, cognitive and neural substrates. Therefore, it is essential to know whether an individual with psychosis is bilingual. Leaving modulating effects of bilingualism in psychosis unconsidered, runs high risk of confounding any clinical assessment and research. Although more than half of the world is bilingual, to date, this risk has not been addressed. This critical review challenges current basic diagnostic practices in psychiatry that conflate language and other cognitive domains. Drawing on neuropsychology, psycho-/neurolinguistics, and cognitive neuroscience, we (i) identify potential contact points between bilingualism and psychosis, (ii) present a decision tree framework for the clinical and research setting to systematically study those contact points, and (iii) provide the basis for developing and testing new treatments considering the lived realities of the majority of individuals with psychosis, namely bilingual individuals, and leveraging modern technology to do so. If the field of psychiatry embraces these conclusions, not only could bilingual individuals with psychosis experience more equity, but the larger field would benefit by reducing confounds inherent to ascribing to monolingual assumptions.
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.