Jai L Shah1, Neeraj Tandon, Matcheri S Keshavan. 1. Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Connecticut Mental Health Center, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Abstract
AIM: Accurate prediction of which high-risk individuals will go on to develop psychosis would assist early intervention and prevention paradigms. We sought to review investigations of prospective psychosis prediction based on markers and variables examined in longitudinal familial high-risk (FHR) studies. METHODS: We performed literature searches in MedLine, PubMed and PsycINFO for articles assessing performance characteristics of predictive clinical tests in FHR studies of psychosis. Studies were included if they reported on one or more predictive variables in subjects at FHR for psychosis. We complemented this search strategy with references drawn from articles, reviews, book chapters and monographs. RESULTS: Across generations of FHR projects, predictive studies have investigated behavioural, cognitive, psychometric, clinical, neuroimaging and other markers. Recent analyses have incorporated multivariate and multi-domain approaches to risk ascertainment, with generally modest results. CONCLUSIONS: Although a broad range of risk factors has been identified, no individual marker or combination of markers can at this time enable accurate prospective prediction of emerging psychosis for individuals at FHR. We outline the complex and multi-level nature of psychotic illness, the myriad of factors influencing its development, and methodological hurdles to accurate and reliable prediction. Prospects and challenges for future generations of FHR studies are discussed in the context of early detection and intervention strategies.
AIM: Accurate prediction of which high-risk individuals will go on to develop psychosis would assist early intervention and prevention paradigms. We sought to review investigations of prospective psychosis prediction based on markers and variables examined in longitudinal familial high-risk (FHR) studies. METHODS: We performed literature searches in MedLine, PubMed and PsycINFO for articles assessing performance characteristics of predictive clinical tests in FHR studies of psychosis. Studies were included if they reported on one or more predictive variables in subjects at FHR for psychosis. We complemented this search strategy with references drawn from articles, reviews, book chapters and monographs. RESULTS: Across generations of FHR projects, predictive studies have investigated behavioural, cognitive, psychometric, clinical, neuroimaging and other markers. Recent analyses have incorporated multivariate and multi-domain approaches to risk ascertainment, with generally modest results. CONCLUSIONS: Although a broad range of risk factors has been identified, no individual marker or combination of markers can at this time enable accurate prospective prediction of emerging psychosis for individuals at FHR. We outline the complex and multi-level nature of psychotic illness, the myriad of factors influencing its development, and methodological hurdles to accurate and reliable prediction. Prospects and challenges for future generations of FHR studies are discussed in the context of early detection and intervention strategies.
Authors: Doron Gothelf; Fumiko Hoeft; Takefumi Ueno; Lisa Sugiura; Agatha D Lee; Paul Thompson; Allan L Reiss Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: G Paul Amminger; Miriam R Schäfer; Konstantinos Papageorgiou; Claudia M Klier; Sue M Cotton; Susan M Harrigan; Andrew Mackinnon; Patrick D McGorry; Gregor E Berger Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-02
Authors: Shaun M Eack; Konasale M R Prasad; Debra M Montrose; Dhruman D Goradia; Diana Dworakowski; Jean Miewald; Matcheri S Keshavan Journal: Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 5.067
Authors: Patrick D McGorry; Barnaby Nelson; G Paul Amminger; Andreas Bechdolf; Shona M Francey; Gregor Berger; Anita Riecher-Rössler; Joachim Klosterkötter; Stephan Ruhrmann; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Merete Nordentoft; Ian Hickie; Philip McGuire; Michael Berk; Eric Y H Chen; Matcheri S Keshavan; Alison R Yung Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Jason Schiffman; Emily Kline; Nicole D Jameson; Holger J Sorensen; Shana Dodge; Thomas Tsuji; Erik L Mortensen; Sarnoff A Mednick Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Jai L Shah; Neeraj Tandon; Debra M Montrose; Diana Mermon; Shaun M Eack; Jean Miewald; Matcheri S Keshavan Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Saskia de Leede-Smith; Steven Roodenrys; Lauren Horsley; Shannen Matrini; Erin Mison; Emma Barkus Journal: Schizophr Res Cogn Date: 2016-12-23