Cited by 121Schizophrenia research and treatmentBipolar Disorder and TreatmentPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

Negative psychotic symptoms and impaired role functioning predict transition outcomes in the at-risk mental state: a latent class cluster analysis study

Open access
Valmaggia, L. R., Stahl, D., Yung, A. R., Nelson, B., Fusar-Poli, P., McGorry, P. D., McGuire, P. K.·2013·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many research groups have attempted to predict which individuals with an at-risk mental state (ARMS) for psychosis will later develop a psychotic disorder. However, it is difficult to predict the course and outcome based on individual symptoms scores. METHOD: Data from 318 ARMS individuals from two specialized services for ARMS subjects were analysed using latent class cluster analysis (LCCA). The score on the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS) was used to explore the number, size and symptom profiles of latent classes. RESULTS: LCCA produced four high-risk classes, censored after 2 years of follow-up: class 1 (mild) had the lowest transition risk (4.9%). Subjects in this group had the lowest scores on all the CAARMS items, they were younger, more likely to be students and had the highest Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score. Subjects in class 2 (moderate) had a transition risk of 10.9%, scored moderately on all CAARMS items and were more likely to be in employment. Those in class 3 (moderate-severe) had a transition risk of 11.4% and scored moderately severe on the CAARMS. Subjects in class 4 (severe) had the highest transition risk (41.2%), they scored highest on the CAARMS, had the lowest GAF score and were more likely to be unemployed. Overall, class 4 was best distinguished from the other classes on the alogia, avolition/apathy, anhedonia, social isolation and impaired role functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The different classes of symptoms were associated with significant differences in the risk of transition at 2 years of follow-up. Symptomatic clustering predicts prognosis better than individual symptoms.

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 · 10.1017/s0033291713000251

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • People without a need for care were differentiated from patients by an absence of paranoia, cognitive difficulties, and negative symptoms.

    “People without a need for care were differentiated from patients by an absence of paranoia, cognitive difficulties, and negative symptoms, which is in line with evidence that these issues are more predictive of transition to psychosis and poor functional outcomes than perceptual disturbances in ultra-high-risk individuals.5, 6”

    From Clinical relevance of appraisals of persistent psychotic experiences in people with and without a need for care: an experimental study (2017) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Introduction (p. 2) says negative and cognitive symptoms may predict psychosis better than positive symptoms, and Differences between risk classes (p. 11) links negative symptoms to transition and poor long-term outcomes. The paper does not support the full comparison attributed to it: it does not identify paranoia as more predictive than perceptual disturbances, or establish that all three named issues outperform perceptual disturbances for poor functional outcomes. The opening comparison between people without a need for care and patients is the citing authors’ own finding, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent evidence shows that positive symptoms in individuals at ultra-high-risk for psychosis are weaker predictors of transition to psychosis and poor functional outcome than negative and disorganized symptoms.

    “recent evidence that positive symptoms in individuals at ultra-high-risk for psychosis are weaker predictors of transition to psychosis and a poor functional outcome than negative and disorganized symptoms 72”

    From Clinical, socio‐demographic and psychological characteristics in individuals with persistent psychotic experiences with and without a “need for care” (2016) · cites this paper as [72]

    The Introduction (p. 2) says positive symptoms alone are poor predictors of longitudinal outcomes, and Differences between risk classes (p. 11) links negative rather than positive symptoms to transition and long-term outcome. The paper does not establish the same comparative predictive claim for disorganized symptoms; its risk classes were best distinguished by negative symptoms, social isolation and impaired role functioning (p. 11). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Valmaggia, L. R., Stahl, D., Yung, A. R., Nelson, B., Fusar-Poli, P., McGorry, P. D., & McGuire, P. K.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Valmaggia, L. R.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2013-02-27
Volume
43
Issue
11
Pages
2311-2325
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2088412242
Cited by
121
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 2
FWCI
8.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • King's College London
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Keywords
clinical high risk for psychosis, negative psychotic symptoms, role functioning, symptom profiles, CAARMS, outcome prediction, alogia, avolition, anhedonia, social isolation, Global Assessment of Functioning, latent class clustering
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aphasia, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, Psychotic Disorders, Risk Factors, Social Isolation, Unemployment, Cluster Analysis, Disease Progression, Risk Assessment, Early Diagnosis, Young Adult, Apathy, Anhedonia, Early Medical Intervention, 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