Cited by 121Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingBipolar Disorder and Treatment

Deconstructing Pretest Risk Enrichment to Optimize Prediction of Psychosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk

Open access
Fusar-Poli, Paolo, Rutigliano, Grazia, Stahl, Daniel, Schmidt, André, Ramella-Cravaro, Valentina, Hitesh, Shetty, McGuire, Philip·2016·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Pretest risk estimation is routinely used in clinical medicine to inform further diagnostic testing in individuals with suspected diseases. To our knowledge, the overall characteristics and specific determinants of pretest risk of psychosis onset in individuals undergoing clinical high risk (CHR) assessment are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the characteristics and determinants of pretest risk of psychosis onset in individuals undergoing CHR assessment and to develop and externally validate a pretest risk stratification model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clinical register-based cohort study. Individuals were drawn from electronic, real-world, real-time clinical records relating to routine mental health care of CHR services in South London and the Maudsley National Health Service Trust in London, United Kingdom. The study included nonpsychotic individuals referred on suspicion of psychosis risk and assessed by the Outreach and Support in South London CHR service from 2002 to 2015. Model development and validation was performed with machine-learning methods based on Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator for Cox proportional hazards model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pretest risk of psychosis onset in individuals undergoing CHR assessment. Predictors included age, sex, age × sex interaction, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, marital status, referral source, and referral year. RESULTS: A total of 710 nonpsychotic individuals undergoing CHR assessment were included. The mean age was 23 years. Three hundred ninety-nine individuals were men (56%), their race/ethnicity was heterogenous, and they were referred from a variety of sources. The cumulative 6-year pretest risk of psychosis was 14.55% (95% CI, 11.71% to 17.99%), confirming substantial pretest risk enrichment during the recruitment of individuals undergoing CHR assessment. Race/ethnicity and source of referral were associated with pretest risk enrichment. The predictive model based on these factors was externally validated, showing moderately good discrimination and sufficient calibration. It was used to stratify individuals undergoing CHR assessment into 4 classes of pretest risk (6-year): low, 3.39% (95% CI, 0.96% to 11.56%); moderately low, 11.58% (95% CI, 8.10% to 16.40%); moderately high, 23.69% (95% CI, 16.58% to 33.20%); and high, 53.65% (95% CI, 36.78% to 72.46%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Significant risk enrichment occurs before individuals are assessed for a suspected CHR state. Race/ethnicity and source of referral are associated with pretest risk enrichment in individuals undergoing CHR assessment. A stratification model can identify individuals at differential pretest risk of psychosis. Identification of these subgroups may inform outreach campaigns and subsequent testing and eventually optimize psychosis prediction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.2707

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Unstructured recruitment processes and risk enrichment procedures in samples undergoing clinical high-risk for psychosis assessment substantially determine the actual level of psychosis risk in these individuals, leading to underpowered and non-significant trials.

    “For example, it is apparent that unstructured recruitment processes and risk enrichment procedures in samples undergoing CHR-P assessment have a substantial role in determining the actual level of risk for psychosis in these individuals 107-109 , leading to underpowered and non-significant trials 95 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fusar-Poli, P., Rutigliano, G., Stahl, D., Schmidt, A., Ramella-Cravaro, V., Hitesh, S., & McGuire, P.
Affiliations
  • King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom2Outreach and Support in South London service, South London and the Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • University of Pisa (IT)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom4Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
  • South London and the Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust, Biomedical Research Centre Nucleus, London, United Kingdom
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2016-12-01
Volume
73
Issue
12
Pages
1260
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2541736368
Cited by
121
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 3
FWCI
16.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (acceptedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • King's College London
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
  • Medical Research Council (MR/N026063/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
psychosis onset prediction, clinical high risk, risk stratification model, race and ethnicity, referral sources, external validation, LASSO Cox regression, psychosis prevention, socioeconomic status, sex differences, sex-age interaction, mental health services
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, London, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Psychotic Disorders, Referral and Consultation, Cohort Studies, Proportional Hazards Models, Risk Assessment, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review