SynthesisBMC psychiatry2025
A meta-analysis comparing cognitive function between individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis and individuals at family high-risk for psychosis.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCognitive impairment is detectable before psychosis onset, yet no quantitative synthesis has directly contrasted neurocognition between clinical high risk (CHR) and familial high risk (FHR). We aimed to clarify domain-level differences to inform assessment and early intervention.
methodsFollowing PRISMA/MOOSE, we searched PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO (1996–May 2025) for peer-reviewed studies reporting standardized neurocognitive outcomes in both CHR and FHR groups. Outcomes were organized by MATRICS domains. Effect sizes were Hedges’ g (coded CHR − FHR; negative = poorer CHR) synthesized with random-effects. When multiple outcomes occurred within a study/domain, a within-study fixed-effects composite (r = 0.50) was used. Heterogeneity (Q, I²), small-study effects (Egger’s test), and prespecified meta-regression (when k ≥ 10) were performed.
resultsFourteen studies were included (CHR n = 1,160; FHR n = 813). Processing speed: CHR underperformed FHR (pooled g = − 0.290, 95% CI: −0.521 to − 0.059, p = 0.014;); task-level analyses showed significant effects for TMT-A and Stroop baselines. Attention, working memory, executive function, and visual learning showed no robust between-group differences at the domain level (all p > 0.10; moderate–high heterogeneity). Verbal learning: subgroups indicated CHR deficits in list-learning—immediate (g = − 0.558, 95% CI − 1.099 to − 0.017, p = 0.043) and list-learning—delayed (g = − 0.296, 95% CI − 0.526 to − 0.067, p = 0.011). Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS) Logical Memory (immediate/delayed) was under-represented (k < 3). Meta-regression (processing speed): region moderated effects (Non-Asian vs. Asian: β = 0.486, 95% CI 0.051–0.921, p = 0.0287; R²_analog ≈ 24%); age difference, publication year, and study quality were not significant. Egger’s tests did not indicate small-study effects (all p > 0.05).
conclusionsCompared with FHR, CHR shows reliable impairments in processing speed and verbal list-learning, while other domains do not differ robustly. Findings refine the cognitive phenotype of CHR beyond familial liability and highlight processing speed and list-learning as pragmatic markers for risk stratification and monitoring. Clinical trial number: not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.