ArticleSchizophrenia research. Cognition2026
Does neurocognition predict personal recovery over time in psychotic disorder patients?
Article in Schizophrenia research. Cognition, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Personal recovery has been recognized as an important goal in patients with psychotic disorders. It is defined as a deeply personal, unique process of living a satisfying life even with the limitations caused by the illness. Neurocognitive impairments are a core feature of psychotic disorders and proven to be a key determinant of functional outcomes, such as daily- and social functioning, work and independent living. However, the relationship with personal recovery remains unclear. Few studies investigated the relationship, and the findings remains inconclusive. This study explores the relationship between neurocognition and personal recovery, both cross-sectionally and over a year time. Method: Data from baseline and T1 (one year later) was used from the UP's cohort; this is a longitudinal observational study ( Results: Global neurocognition and neurocognitive domains (verbal memory, working memory, motor speed, verbal fluency, attention and executive function) were not associated with personal recovery at baseline and after a one-year period. The models controlling for age and sex explained only a small proportion of the variance, adding the PANSS-R significantly improved the explained variance. Additional analyses showed robust finding across different personal recovery measures using the I.ROC. Personal recovery improved with 6.9% between baseline and one year later: the ReQOL improved from 57.6% to 64.5%, the I.ROC improved from 43.9% to 50.8%. Conclusion: Neurocognition did not predict personal recovery in this study. Patients with and without neurocognitive impairments showed similar levels of personal recovery at baseline and over a one-year time. This finding suggests that personal recovery can be accomplished in the presence of neurocognitive impairments and highlights the importance of addressing both domains independently. Psychotic symptoms are a stronger predictor of personal recovery than neurocognitive impairments. Future research is needed to investigate possible indirect relationships through metacognition.
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.