Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35333372›Full record

SynthesisSchizophrenia bulletin2022

Neuropsychological Performance Among Individuals at Clinical High-Risk for Psychosis vs Putatively Low-Risk Peers With Other Psychopathology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zachary B Millman, Caroline Roemer, Teresa Vargas, Jason Schiffman, Vijay A Mittal, James M Gold

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Transdiagnostic Clinical Staging in Youth Mental Health: A primer for clinical practice.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Cognitive Control in Schizophrenia: Advances in Computational Approaches.Current directions in psychological science · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Arketamine for cognitive impairment in psychiatric disorders.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Zachary B MillmanPsychotic Disorders Division, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3970-9960
Caroline RoemerPsychology Department, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Teresa VargasDepartment of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
Jason SchiffmanDepartment of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Vijay A MittalDepartment of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9017-5119
James M GoldMaryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Northwestern University · USHarvard University · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore County · US

Funding

Stuart T. Hauser Research Training Program in Biological and Social Psychiatry.T32MH016259 · NIMH · JUDGE BAKER CHILDREN'S CENTER · PI Marek Kubicki, Martha E. Shenton · 1985 to 2026
$8.4M
1/5 CAPER: Computerized Assessment of ProdromE RiskR01MH120090 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI GOLD, JAMES M. · 2020 to 2024
$2.9M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH120090NIMH NIH HHS T32MH016259
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and hypothesisYouth at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis present with neuropsychological impairments relative to healthy controls (HC), but whether these impairments are distinguishable from those seen among putatively lower risk peers with other psychopathology remains unknown. We hypothesized that any excess impairment among CHR cohorts beyond that seen in other clinical groups is minimal and accounted for by the proportion who transition to psychosis (CHR-T). STUDY

designWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing cognitive performance among CHR youth to clinical comparators (CC) who either sought mental health services but did not meet CHR criteria or presented with verified nonpsychotic psychopathology. STUDY

resultsTwenty-one studies were included representing nearly 4000 participants. Individuals at CHR showed substantial cognitive impairments relative to HC (eg, global cognition: g = -0.48 [-0.60, -0.34]), but minimal impairments relative to CC (eg, global cognition: g = -0.13 [-0.20, -0.06]). Any excess impairment among CHR was almost entirely attributable to CHR-T; impairment among youth at CHR without transition (CHR-NT) was typically indistinguishable from CC (eg, global cognition, CHR-T: g = -0.42 [-0.64, -0.19], CHR-NT: g = -0.09 [-0.18, 0.00]; processing speed, CHR-T: g = -0.59 [-0.82, -0.37], CHR-NT: g = -0.12 [-0.25, 0.07]; working memory, CHR-T: g = -0.42 [-0.62, -0.22], CHR-NT: g = -0.03 [-0.14, 0.08]).

conclusionsNeurocognitive impairment in CHR cohorts should be interpreted cautiously when psychosis or even CHR status is the specific clinical syndrome of interest as these impairments most likely represent a transdiagnostic vs psychosis-specific vulnerability.

Indexed as

Cognition DisordersPsychotic DisordersAdolescentCognitionHumansNeuropsychological TestsRiskclinical stagingdevelopmental psychopathologyneurocognitiveschizophreniatransdiagnostic

Identifiers

PMID35333372
PMCPMC9434467
OpenAlexW4214647594

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.