ArticlePsychiatry investigation2026
Interplay of Subjective Symptoms Across the Stages of the Schizophrenia Spectrum.
Article in Psychiatry investigation, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSchizophrenia (SPR) spectrum disorders involve various subjective symptoms, including disruptions in self-awareness, cognitive complaints, and schizotypy. While tools such as the Examination of Anomalous Self-Experience (EASE), Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire (Frankfurter Beschwerde-Fragebogen, FBF), and Chapman Psychosis Proneness Scales (CPPS) have been employed, research on their interrelations across different stages of the SPR spectrum remains limited, particularly in ultra-high risk (UHR) and SPR groups.
methodsThis study examined the EASE, FBF, and CPPS scores among healthy controls (HC), individuals at UHR, and those with SPR. Group differences and the interplay of subjective symptoms were analysed to understand how these dimensions interact and evolve across the psychosis continuum.
resultsHCs scored significantly lower on all subjective symptom measures compared to both UHR and SPR groups. Specifically, the HC group (0.82±1.51) scored significantly lower on the EASE than both the UHR (13.90±9.67) and SPR (10.13±9.16) groups (p<0.001). Similarly, the FBF scores for HCs (9.75±10.30) were significantly lower than for the UHR (36.27±22.73, p<0.001) and SPR (26.77±26.15, p=0.017) groups. Significant differences were also found in CPPS subscales, with HCs scoring significantly lower than UHR and SPR groups on the Physical Anhedonia Scale (UHR, p<0.001; SPR, p=0.026) and the Social Anhedonia Scale (HC vs. UHR: p<0.001, HC vs. SPR: p<0.001). The differences in subjective disturbances between the UHR and SPR groups were less pronounced and not statistically significant for any of the main measures. Stronger associations among the EASE, FBF, and CPPS were observed in the SPR group.
conclusionThe findings indicate that the UHR and SPR groups share elevated levels of disturbed subjective experiences, with the SPR group showing greater disruptions in the interplay of these experiences. These findings suggest a continuous spectrum of shared experiential anomalies and support the value of integrated assessment approaches. Such combined evaluations may enhance the precision of early psychosis risk detection and longitudinal monitoring, offering a foundational basis for future interventions grounded in phenomenological understanding.
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.