Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 248

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Generalized and Specific Cognitive Performance in Clinical High-Risk Cohorts: A Review Highlighting Potential Vulnerability Markers for Psychosis

Open access
Brewer, W. J., Wood, S. J., Phillips, L. J., Francey, S. M., Pantelis, C., Yung, A. R., Cornblatt, B., McGorry, P. D.·2005·Schizophrenia Bulletin

Abstract

Cognitive deficits are a core feature of established psychotic illnesses. However, the association between cognition and emerging psychosis is less understood. While there is some evidence that cognitive deficits are present prior to the onset of psychosis, findings are not consistent. In this article we provide an overview of the more general cognitive findings available from genetic high-risk studies, retrospective studies, and birth cohort studies. We then focus the review on neuropsychological performance in clinically "at-risk" groups. Overall, general cognitive ability as assessed by established batteries appears to remain relatively intact in these ultra-high risk cohorts and is a poor predictor close to illness onset relative to other vulnerability factors. Further decline may occur with illness progression, more consistent with state relative to trait factors. In addition, most established cognitive tasks involve several relatively discrete cognitive subprocesses, where findings from general batteries of subtests may mask specific deficits. In this context, our review suggests that relatively specific olfactory identification and spatial working memory deficits exist prior to illness onset and may be more potent trait markers for psychosis than cognitively dense tasks such as verbal memory. Suggestions for further research address the importance of standardization of inclusion criteria and the maintenance of basic neuropsychological assessment to allow better comparison of findings across centers. Further, in order to better understand the aetiopathology of cognitive dysfunction in psychosis, more experimental, hypothesis-driven measures of discrete cognitive processes are required. Delineation of the relationship between specific cognitive ability and symptoms from data-driven approaches may improve our understanding of the role of cognition during psychosis onset.

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 · 10.1093/schbul/sbj077

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 248

Metadata

Authors
Brewer, W. J., Wood, S. J., Phillips, L. J., Francey, S. M., Pantelis, C., Yung, A. R., Cornblatt, B., & McGorry, P. D.
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Published
2005-09-28
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
538-555
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
OpenAlex
W2155515198
Cited by
248
References
9
FWCI
5.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Generalized and Specific Cognitive Performance in Clinical High-Risk Cohorts: A Review Highlighting Potential Vulnerability Markers for Psychosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/schbul/sbj077
The paper
Brewer, W. J., Wood, S. J., Phillips, L. J., Francey, S. M., Pantelis, C., Yung, A. R., Cornblatt, B., & McGorry, P. D. (2005). Generalized and Specific Cognitive Performance in Clinical High-Risk Cohorts: A Review Highlighting Potential Vulnerability Markers for Psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbj077

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.