ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
The role of cognitive function in predicting metabolic risk in schizophrenia: a multi-model comparison incorporating clinical features.
Article in Frontiers in 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
Background: Patients with schizophrenia frequently exhibit metabolic abnormalities that are closely associated with cognitive impairment. However, clinically applicable risk-stratification tools based on concise and generalizable indicators remain limited. This study evaluated the predictive value of cognitive and clinical features for metabolic risk stratification and compared the discriminative performance of traditional statistical and machine-learning models. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 213 patients with schizophrenia who received treatment at Zhongshan Third People's Hospital between September 2024 and September 2025 were enrolled according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Based on the diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome in the Chinese Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes (2017 edition), patients were categorized into three groups: High-risk, Critical, and MS. General clinical data, symptom ratings, and cognitive assessments (Chinese version of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, MCCB) were collected. Features were selected using the Boruta algorithm and screened for multicollinearity, followed by the construction of multinomial logistic regression, random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and support vector machine (SVM) models; class imbalance was addressed using SMOTE. Results: Years of education, processing speed, verbal learning, visual learning, and reasoning/problem solving demonstrated stable and independent predictive contributions across models. Age, age at onset, and negative symptoms were also retained during feature selection. The RF model achieved the best overall discriminative performance (macro-average AUC = 0.789; Macro-F1 = 0.603), whereas the SVM model showed superior performance in identifying minority classes (balanced accuracy = 0.725; Macro-F1 = 0.625). These results remained consistent after controlling for clinical symptoms and general demographic variables. Conclusions: Modeling based on concise clinical and cognitive indicators can effectively achieve metabolic risk stratification in patients with schizophrenia. Rather than relying on a single algorithm, combining the complementary strengths of RF and SVM and selecting models according to specific clinical needs and data characteristics may improve the identification of high-risk individuals and support proactive intervention and management.
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.