ArticleEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2025
Impacts of risk thresholds and age on clinical high risk for psychosis: a comparative network analysis.
Article in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Addressing the elephant in the screening room: an item response theory analysis of the Prodromal Questionnaire for at-risk symptoms of psychosis.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the main goals for supporting people with a psychotic disorder is early detection and intervention, and the detection of Clinical High Risk (CHR) is a major challenge in this respect. This study sought to compare core symptoms of CHR for psychosis networks based on two CHR self-assessment tools, across different risk thresholds and age groups. This cross-sectional online investigation analyzed 936 individuals for CHR, in France and the UK, with the Prodromal Questionnaire-16 (PQ-16) and the Perceptual and Cognitive Aberrations (PCA). Twelve different symptom networks were constructed, assessing relationships, compactness, centrality, predictability, and comparisons between them, based on different thresholds and age groups. In the above-threshold PQ-16 network, the most central symptom was "Voices or whispers"; in the PCA network, the most central symptom was "Non-relevant thoughts distract or bother". They presented low overall predictability. No significant difference was found between them. This study makes three key contributions. First, this cross-network analyses highlight the relative importance of some central symptoms. Secondly, comparisons between networks demonstrate the unity of the CHR construct across scales, thresholds, and ages, affirming its phenotypic homogeneity, an essential issue for patient care pathways. Thirdly, the low average network predictability suggests the existence of unconsidered symptoms within these CHR networks. These results shed light on the organization of CHR symptoms using routine clinical questionnaires, offering insights for preventive targets in a logic of precision semiology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39164427What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.