Ricardo E Carrión1, Barbara A Cornblatt1, Cynthia Z Burton1, Ivy F Tso1, Andrea M Auther1, Steven Adelsheim1, Roderick Calkins1, Cameron S Carter1, Tara Niendam1, Tamara G Sale1, Stephan F Taylor1, William R McFarlane1. 1. From the Division of Psychiatry Research, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, N.Y.; the Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, N.Y.; the Departments of Psychiatry and Molecular Medicine, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, N.Y.; the Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; the Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif.; the Imaging Research Center and the Center for Neuroscience, University of California Davis, Sacramento, Calif.; Portland State University Regional Research Institute, Portland, Ore.; the Mid-Valley Behavioral Care Network, Marion County Health Department, Salem, Ore.; Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; and Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As part of the second phase of the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS-2), Cannon and colleagues report, concurrently with the present article, on a risk calculator for the individualized prediction of a psychotic disorder in a 2-year period. The present study represents an external validation of the NAPLS-2 psychosis risk calculator using an independent sample of patients at clinical high risk for psychosis collected as part of the Early Detection, Intervention, and Prevention of Psychosis Program (EDIPPP). METHOD: Of the total EDIPPP sample of 210 subjects rated as being at clinical high risk based on the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes, 176 had at least one follow-up assessment and were included in the construction of a new prediction model with six predictor variables in the NAPLS-2 psychosis risk calculator (unusual thoughts and suspiciousness, symbol coding test performance, verbal learning test performance, decline in social functioning, baseline age, and family history). Discrimination performance was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The NAPLS-2 risk calculator was then used to generate a psychosis risk estimate for each case in the external validation sample. RESULTS: The external validation model showed good discrimination, with an AUC of 0.790 (95% CI=0.644-0.937). In addition, the personalized risk generated by the risk calculator provided a solid estimation of the actual conversion outcome in the validation sample. CONCLUSIONS: Two independent samples of clinical high-risk patients converge to validate the NAPLS-2 psychosis risk calculator. This prediction calculator represents a meaningful step toward early intervention and the personalized treatment of psychotic disorders.
OBJECTIVE: As part of the second phase of the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS-2), Cannon and colleagues report, concurrently with the present article, on a risk calculator for the individualized prediction of a psychotic disorder in a 2-year period. The present study represents an external validation of the NAPLS-2 psychosis risk calculator using an independent sample of patients at clinical high risk for psychosis collected as part of the Early Detection, Intervention, and Prevention of Psychosis Program (EDIPPP). METHOD: Of the total EDIPPP sample of 210 subjects rated as being at clinical high risk based on the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes, 176 had at least one follow-up assessment and were included in the construction of a new prediction model with six predictor variables in the NAPLS-2 psychosis risk calculator (unusual thoughts and suspiciousness, symbol coding test performance, verbal learning test performance, decline in social functioning, baseline age, and family history). Discrimination performance was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The NAPLS-2 risk calculator was then used to generate a psychosis risk estimate for each case in the external validation sample. RESULTS: The external validation model showed good discrimination, with an AUC of 0.790 (95% CI=0.644-0.937). In addition, the personalized risk generated by the risk calculator provided a solid estimation of the actual conversion outcome in the validation sample. CONCLUSIONS: Two independent samples of clinical high-risk patients converge to validate the NAPLS-2 psychosis risk calculator. This prediction calculator represents a meaningful step toward early intervention and the personalized treatment of psychotic disorders.
Authors: Tandy J Miller; Thomas H McGlashan; Joanna L Rosen; Kristen Cadenhead; Tyrone Cannon; Joseph Ventura; William McFarlane; Diana O Perkins; Godfrey D Pearlson; Scott W Woods Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2003 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Barbara A Cornblatt; Ricardo E Carrión; Andrea Auther; Danielle McLaughlin; Ruth H Olsen; Majnu John; Christoph U Correll Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Andrew P DeFilippis; Rebekah Young; Christopher J Carrubba; John W McEvoy; Matthew J Budoff; Roger S Blumenthal; Richard A Kronmal; Robyn L McClelland; Khurram Nasir; Michael J Blaha Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Stefan Borgwardt; Andreas Bechdolf; Jean Addington; Anita Riecher-Rössler; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Matcheri Keshavan; Stephen Wood; Stephan Ruhrmann; Larry J Seidman; Lucia Valmaggia; Tyrone Cannon; Eva Velthorst; Lieuwe De Haan; Barbara Cornblatt; Ilaria Bonoldi; Max Birchwood; Thomas McGlashan; William Carpenter; Patrick McGorry; Joachim Klosterkötter; Philip McGuire; Alison Yung Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Adam J Ciarleglio; Gary Brucato; Michael D Masucci; Rebecca Altschuler; Tiziano Colibazzi; Cheryl M Corcoran; Francesca M Crump; Guillermo Horga; Eugénie Lehembre-Shiah; Wei Leong; Scott A Schobel; Melanie M Wall; Lawrence H Yang; Jeffrey A Lieberman; Ragy R Girgis Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Alex S Cohen; Taylor Fedechko; Elana K Schwartz; Thanh P Le; Peter W Foltz; Jared Bernstein; Jian Cheng; Elizabeth Rosenfeld; Brita Elvevåg Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2019-06-01
Authors: G Brucato; M D Masucci; L Y Arndt; S Ben-David; T Colibazzi; C M Corcoran; A H Crumbley; F M Crump; K E Gill; D Kimhy; A Lister; S A Schobel; L H Yang; J A Lieberman; R R Girgis Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Anthony W Zoghbi; Joel A Bernanke; Julia Gleichman; Michael D Masucci; Cheryl M Corcoran; Allegra Califano; Justin Segovia; Tiziano Colibazzi; Michael B First; Gary Brucato; Ragy R Girgis Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2019-04-21 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Boris Birmaher; John A Merranko; Tina R Goldstein; Mary Kay Gill; Benjamin I Goldstein; Heather Hower; Shirley Yen; Danella Hafeman; Michael Strober; Rasim S Diler; David Axelson; Neal D Ryan; Martin B Keller Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Eva Velthorst; Eric C Meyer; Anthony J Giuliano; Jean Addington; Kristin S Cadenhead; Tyrone D Cannon; Barbara A Cornblatt; Thomas H McGlashan; Diana O Perkins; Ming T Tsuang; Elaine F Walker; Scott W Woods; Carrie E Bearden; Larry J Seidman Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Ricardo E Carrión; Andrea M Auther; Danielle McLaughlin; Ruth Olsen; Jean Addington; Carrie E Bearden; Kristin S Cadenhead; Tyrone D Cannon; Daniel H Mathalon; Thomas H McGlashan; Diana O Perkins; Larry J Seidman; Ming T Tsuang; Elaine F Walker; Scott W Woods; Barbara A Cornblatt Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Tyrone D Cannon; Changhong Yu; Jean Addington; Carrie E Bearden; Kristin S Cadenhead; Barbara A Cornblatt; Robert Heinssen; Clark D Jeffries; Daniel H Mathalon; Thomas H McGlashan; Diana O Perkins; Larry J Seidman; Ming T Tsuang; Elaine F Walker; Scott W Woods; Michael W Kattan Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 18.112