Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 355

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 134 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of vulnerability and risks for schizophrenia: Beyond the two hit hypothesis

Open access
Davis, Justin, Eyre, Harris, Jacka, Felice N, Dodd, Seetal, Dean, Olivia, McEwen, Sarah, Debnath, Monojit, McGrath, John, Maes, Michael, Amminger, Paul, McGorry, Patrick D, Pantelis, Christos, Berk, Michael·2016·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Schizophrenia risk has often been conceptualized using a model which requires two hits in order to generate the clinical phenotype—the first as an early priming in a genetically predisposed individual and the second a likely environmental insult. The aim of this paper was to review the literature and reformulate this binary risk-vulnerability model. We sourced the data for this narrative review from the electronic database PUBMED. Our search terms were not limited by language or date of publication. The development of schizophrenia may be driven by genetic vulnerability interacting with multiple vulnerability factors including lowered prenatal vitamin D exposure, viral infections, smoking intelligence quotient, social cognition cannabis use, social defeat, nutrition and childhood trauma. It is likely that these genetic risks, environmental risks and vulnerability factors are cumulative and interactive with each other and with critical periods of neurodevelopmental vulnerability. The development of schizophrenia is likely to be more complex and nuanced than the binary two hit model originally proposed nearly thirty years ago. Risk appears influenced by a more complex process involving genetic risk interfacing with multiple potentially interacting hits and vulnerability factors occurring at key periods of neurodevelopmental activity, which culminate in the expression of disease state. These risks are common across a number of neuropsychiatric and medical disorders, which might inform common preventive and intervention strategies across non-communicable disorders.

Overview

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 · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.017

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 134 references

Cited by

See all 355

Metadata

Authors
Davis, J., Eyre, H., Jacka, F. N., Dodd, S., Dean, O., McEwen, S., Debnath, M., McGrath, J., Maes, M., Amminger, P., McGorry, P. D., Pantelis, C., & Berk, M.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
65
Pages
185-194
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.017
OpenAlex
W2330555044
Cited by
355
References
134
FWCI
31.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review of vulnerability and risks for schizophrenia: Beyond the two hit hypothesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.017
The paper
Davis, J., Eyre, H., Jacka, F. N., Dodd, S., Dean, O., McEwen, S., Debnath, M., McGrath, J., Maes, M., Amminger, P., McGorry, P. D., Pantelis, C., & Berk, M. (2016). A review of vulnerability and risks for schizophrenia: Beyond the two hit hypothesis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.017

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.