Cited by 11Schizophrenia research and treatmentNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

The benefit of foresight? An ethical evaluation of predictive testing for psychosis in clinical practice

Open access
Lane, Natalie M, Hunter, Stuart A, Lawrie, Stephen M·2020·NeuroImage: Clinical

Abstract

Risk prediction for psychosis has advanced to the stage at which it could feasibly become a clinical reality. Neuroimaging biomarkers play a central role in many risk prediction models. Using such models to predict the likelihood of transition to psychosis in individuals known to be at high risk has the potential to meaningfully improve outcomes, principally through facilitating early intervention. However, this compelling benefit must be evaluated in light of the broader ethical ramifications of this prospective development in clinical practice. This paper advances ethical discussion in the field in two ways: firstly, through in-depth consideration of the distinctive implications of the clinical application of predictive tools; and, secondly, by evaluating the manner in which newer predictive models incorporating neuroimaging alter the ethical landscape. We outline the current state of the science of predictive testing for psychosis, with a particular focus on emerging neuroimaging biomarkers. We then proceed to ethical analysis employing the four principles of biomedical ethics as a conceptual framework. We conclude with a call for scientific advancement to proceed in tandem with ethical consideration, informed by empirical study of the views of high risk individuals and their families. This collaborative approach will help ensure that predictive testing progresses in an ethically acceptable manner that minimizes potential adverse effects and maximizes meaningful benefits for those at high risk of psychosis.

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.nicl.2020.102228

Cites

92 of 92 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?

  • Sharing an at-risk designation may be helpful (beneficence) and honour the ethical principle that young people have the right to receive information relevant to their health (autonomy).

    “Thus, sharing an at-risk designation may not only be helpful (beneficence), but honour the ethical principle that young people have the right to receive information relevant to their health (autonomy) 268”

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 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Tognin S. van Hell H.H. Merritt K. Towards precision medicine in psychosis: benefits and challenges of multimodal multicenter studies—psyscan: translating neuroimaging findings from research into clinical practice Schizophr. Bull. 2019 Published Online First https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/schbul/sbz067/5551326 PMC7043057 31424555 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lane, N. M., Hunter, S. A., & Lawrie, S. M.
Affiliations
  • NHS Lanarkshire (GB)
  • NHS Lothian (GB)
  • Royal Edinburgh Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Lane, Natalie M
Venue
NeuroImage: Clinical
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020
Volume
26
Pages
102228
ISSN
2213-1582 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3008325654
Cited by
11
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage Clinical (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Keywords
psychosis prediction, neuroimaging biomarkers, early intervention, ethical evaluation, biomedical ethics, high-risk individuals, family perspectives, transition to psychosis
MeSH terms
Adult, Ethics, Medical, Humans, Professional-Patient Relations, Prognosis, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Biomarkers, Risk Assessment, Neuroimaging, Early Medical Intervention

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