Cited by 31Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingBipolar Disorder and Treatment

External validation and extension of the NAPLS-2 and SIPS-RC personalized risk calculators in an independent clinical high-risk sample

Open access
Osborne, K. Juston, Mittal, Vijay A.·2019·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Early identification of individuals likely to develop psychosis is a priority for the field, resulting in the development of risk calculators that provide personalized estimates that an individual at clinical high-risk (CHR) will develop psychosis. The North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) consortium and Shanghai At-Risk for Psychosis program have recently developed such calculators (NAPLS-2/SIPS-RC, respectively), but their discrimination performance has never been examined within the same sample. Moreover, validation studies of NAPLS-2 are limited in number and the SIPS-RC has not been cross-validated in a North American sample. The present research (N = 68) used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to examine the accuracy of the NAPLS-2 and SIPS-RC calculators for discriminating CHR converters and non-converters, as well as extend their use by examining their ability to predict illness progression over a two-year period. For conversion, the NAPLS-2 and SIPS-RC risk calculators demonstrated moderate (AUC = 0.71) and fair (AUC = 0.65) discrimination performance, respectively. Both calculators provided moderate accuracy for discriminating illness progression over two-years (NAPLS-2 AUC = 0.71/ SIPS-RC AUC = 0.76). We discuss implications for researchers and practitioners interested in using the NAPLS-2 and/or SIPS-RC and identify important steps for future research.

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.psychres.2019.06.034

Cites

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 31

Authors
Osborne, K. J., & Mittal, V. A.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Osborne, K. Juston
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
279
Pages
9-14
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2949197971
Cited by
31
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
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
risk calculator, clinical high risk for psychosis, prodromal psychosis, transition to psychosis, external validation, discrimination performance, North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, China, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, North America, Psychotic Disorders, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Disease Progression, Risk Assessment, Area Under Curve, Prodromal Symptoms

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