Abstract
Purpose of Review
This review highlights recent advances in the prediction and treatment of psychotic conversion. Over the past 25 years, research into the prodromal phase of psychotic illness has expanded with the promise of early identification of individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis who are likely to convert to psychosis.
Recent Findings
Meta-analyses highlight conversion rates between 20 and 30% within 2–3 years using existing clinical criteria while research into more specific risk factors, biomarkers, and refinement of psychosis risk calculators has exploded, improving our ability to predict psychotic conversion with greater accuracy. Recent studies highlight risk factors and biomarkers likely to contribute to earlier identification and provide insight into neurodevelopmental abnormalities, CHR subtypes, and interventions that can target specific risk profiles linked to neural mechanisms.
Summary
Ongoing initiatives that assess longer-term (> 5–10 years) outcome of CHR participants can provide valuable information about predictors of later conversion and diagnostic outcomes while large-scale international biomarker studies provide hope for precision intervention that will alter the course of early psychosis globally.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Foundational research from the past two decades has elucidated the presence of the clinical high risk (CHR) state, or the period prior to the onset of psychosis [1, 2]. This prodromal phase of illness has been referred to as CHR, attenuated psychosis syndrome (APS), and ultra high risk (UHR) and has been studied internationally as a critical time window for early identification and intervention [2,3,4]. For the purposes of this review, we will refer to this period as the CHR phase and will refer to individuals as CHR to denote this risk for psychosis. Adapted from findings in schizophrenia cohorts, attenuated positive symptoms such as unusual thought content, suspiciousness, and perceptual abnormalities are now understood to exist on a clinical spectrum of severity, and are used as primary metrics to determine if an individual has crossed the “threshold” from CHR to a full-blown psychotic disorder [3, 5, 6]. In the literature, this is widely referred to as “conversion” or “transition” to psychosis, denoted as CHR-C (converted) versus CHR-NC (non-converted) in this review.
Meta-analyses provide estimates of conversion rates between 20 and 30% within 2–3 years among those that meet criteria for CHR [4]. A recent meta-analysis by Salazar de Pablo et al. [7] revealed similar conversion estimates of 25% in a span of 2–3 years, additionally suggesting that risk for conversion to psychosis increases with time. While findings in conversion rates have been comparable over the past several decades, they remain heterogenous, with many studies using different methodologies, definitions, and controlling for different confounders [7,8,9].
Identifying biomarkers linked to psychotic conversion has become a critical directive in the early psychosis field to not only predict risk of conversion with greater accuracy but to better understand the mechanism of conversion and to identify critical treatment targets linked to neurobiology. Importantly, multi-site large-scale studies have identified epidemiological, neuroimaging, electrophysiological, neurocognitive, inflammatory, genetic, and neurohormonal biomarkers that are associated with increased risk for conversion to psychosis [10].
Despite landmark findings regarding conversion rates and predictors of conversion in prodromal psychosis from the early part of the twenty-first century, there have been few works which have evaluated and summarized these findings in recent years [4, 7, 11]. The aim of this review is to synthesize contemporary research findings regarding prediction of conversion to psychosis among CHR cohorts from 2019 to the present day. This review will highlight areas where critical questions in the pursuit of predicting conversion remain and will provide insight into future research avenues that may improve the fields’ ability to predict the onset of psychosis in CHR youth, to understand the neurobiological mechanisms, and to identify targeted treatments.
Epidemiological Risk Factors for Psychotic Conversion
A variety of clinical and environmental predictors of conversion to psychosis have been identified within CHR cohorts [12,13,14]. When combined, these various risk factors have contributed to predictive models and psychosis risk calculators with higher prognostic accuracy for psychosis in CHR than any one alone [15] (see “Prediction Models” below). Earlier and more precise identification of psychosis risk could lead to better-targeted preventive efforts in this population [16]. Past reviews of the literature have identified factors such as poorer social functioning, severity of subthreshold positive symptoms, cannabis use, migrant status, and genetic risk for schizophrenia as consistent predictors of later psychotic conversion [5, 17].
Since 2019, several reports have investigated epidemiological factors linked to psychosis (Table 1). A recent epidemiological study by Bolhuis et al. [18••] assessed individuals born in Finland in 1987 and found that of those who presented to the hospital for self-harm, 12.8% went on to receive a diagnosis of psychosis and 9.4% a diagnosis of bipolar disorder by 28 years of age. The investigators also found that younger age of first self-harm was associated with higher risk of conversion; 29.1% of those who presented with self-harm before the age of 18 developed a psychotic or bipolar disorder [18••].
Recent reports have also investigated epidemiologic risk factors within CHR cohorts. Barbato et al. [19] assessed whether migrant status is a predictor of transition to psychosis within the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study phase 3 (NAPLS3) cohort. No significant difference was found between the migrant status defined groups (native-born, first-generation, or second-generation) in symptoms or functioning at any time point and transition rates did not differ across groups [19]. Tronick et al. [20], also from the NAPLS3 consortium, found that CHR-C scored lower on a protective factors index—including prosocial involvement and resilient personality traits—compared to CHR-NC, while other risk factors also associated with violence risk were not predictive of conversion. Furthermore, while prior studies have found mixed results when assessing age as a risk factor for development of psychosis [21, 22], a recent meta-analysis by Salazar de Pablo et al. [7] found that age did not moderate transition risk.
Overall, studies of epidemiological risk factors for psychotic conversion have identified emergency room visits for self-harm as a risk factor for psychosis in a general population while recent findings on migrant status and age as risk factors among CHR cohorts are less conclusive. Conversion risk has also been linked to fewer protective factors, suggesting that bolstering resilience could enhance preventative efforts. These data suggest that early evidence of self-harm could also be an important risk factor not only in the general population but perhaps in CHR youth and focused intervention efforts in this population may mitigate future risk of serious mental illness [18••, 20].
Biomarkers Linked to Psychotic Conversion
Neuroimaging
Recent neuroimaging literature findings support the notion that detectable patterns in brain morphometry and functional neuroanatomy are associated with conversion to psychosis in CHR youth [23••]. In one of the first CHR neuroimaging studies, Pantelis et al. [24] demonstrated that decreased gray matter volume was associated with later psychotic conversion in a cross-sectional design while repeat scans revealed continued reduction in gray matter in CHR-C vs CHR-NC. These early cross-sectional and longitudinal findings were replicated in several subsequent studies [25,26,27], further highlighting the importance of assessing neuroimaging biomarkers cross-sectionally as well as change over time as a risk factor for psychosis.
Recent studies (Table 2) including those from the Shanghai at Risk for Psychosis (SHARP) [28] and NAPLS3 [23••] cohorts have reported that decreased cortical thickness and accelerated cortical thinning are associated with conversion. Del Re et al. [28] found that decreased relative cortical thickness in the superior temporal sulcus, Heschl’s gyrus, and pars triangularis differentiated the CHR-C from the CHR-NC after 1 year follow-up while Collins et al. [23••] found accelerated thinning across several cortical regions in the prefrontal, temporal, and parietal regions in CHR-C vs CHR-NC.
White matter alterations measured with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and fractional anisotropy (FA) have also recently been explored as potential predictors of psychotic conversion [29,30,31]. Kristensen et al. [29] demonstrated that a prediction model incorporating FA at baseline assessment predicted conversion to psychosis in a CHR sample from Denmark (see “Prediction Models” below). In alignment with those findings, Nägele et al. [30] observed significantly lower FA in commissural and association tracts in CHR-C vs CHR-NC in a sample from Germany, while León-Ortiz et al. [31] found that lower FA in the posterior thalamic radiation differentiated between CHR-C and CHR-NC in Mexico. These studies suggest that white matter alterations among CHR may be a valid neuroimaging marker for future study in predictive models of psychosis.
Previous studies using resting-state functional connectivity MRI (rs fMRI) have identified thalamocortical and thalamocerebellar dysconnectivity and hyperconnectivity with sensorimotor cortical areas respectively as potential biomarkers of psychosis risk in CHR-C participants [32, 33]. More recently, Collin et al. [34] found that abnormal modular connectome organization at baseline predicted conversion to psychosis as part of the SHARP study. Chen et al. [35••] designed a high-dimensional brain-wide functional mediation framework and used rs fMRI data from the NAPLS2 sample to identify neural markers potentially linked to conversion including increased activity in the frontoparietal network and inferior temporal gyrus and cerebellum as well as negative mediators that were part of the default mode network (DMN), thalamus, visual cortex, and cerebellar lobe 8. Cao et al. [36] investigated longitudinal changes in rs fMRI network from a subsample in NAPLS2 and found that CHR-C showed a reduction in global efficiency and an increase in network diversity relative to CHR-NC and this was primarily driven by the DMN.
Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies (1H-MRS) have identified neurometabolic changes in various brain regions that may be unique to the onset of psychosis and provide insight into the neuropathological changes early in the course of illness [37,38,39,40,41]. In one of the first 1H-MRS studies addressing conversion in CHR, de la Fuente-Sandoval et al. [37] reported higher glutamate (glu) levels in the striatum in CHR-C compared to CHR-NC. In a recent follow-up report from the same group, Leon-Ortiz et al. [31] did not replicate their previous 1H-MRS glu results in a Mexican sample but they observed significant correlations between striatal glu and FA results. Provenzano et al. [42] found that CHR participants had high glu/glx (glu + glutamine) in the hippocampus compared to controls but did not find any association with conversion to psychosis. A recent publication from Bossong et al. [43] in the UK reported that higher levels of hippocampal glutamate predicted conversion along with higher myo-inositol and creatine.
Altogether, neuroimaging has identified several promising imaging biomarkers that may be helpful in both predicting conversion to psychosis as well as conceptualizing structural, functional, and metabolic changes in the brain that precede conversion. One ongoing challenge in neuroimaging and conversion literature is using data-driven approaches to improving existing prediction algorithms and risk calculators (see “Prediction Models” section).
Electrophysiology
A body of literature supports the notion of impaired sensory and cognitive processing prior to and upon conversion to psychosis. Event-related potentials (ERPs) and sensorimotor gating, measurable by electroencephalogram (EEG) or electromyography (EMG) as stereotyped responses to stimuli, have consistently garnered interest as potential neurobiological biomarkers of clinical outcomes in CHR including conversion risk, owing to their robust findings in psychosis [44]. Prior to 2019, the CHR research community honed in on several measures, including mismatch negativity (MMN), oddball, P50 sensory gating, neural synchrony, and prepulse inhibition (PPI) paradigms as potential predictors of psychotic conversion [44,45,46,47,48]. Several early studies highlighted that a reduced P300 amplitude in oddball paradigms was predictive of imminent psychosis [49, 50]. These findings, taken together, have propelled rigorous investigation of each paradigm as objective, measurable biomarkers of conversion.
Since 2019, several important ERP papers have been published, further contributing to the conversion prediction literature in electrophysiology (Table 3). In an auditory oddball paradigm, Hamilton et al. [51••] reported that, among CHR individuals enrolled in the NAPLS2 study, a greater reduction in P300 amplitude—in particular, a deficit in target P3b amplitude—was associated with progression to psychosis and implicated a shorter time to conversion [51••], while Tang et al. [52] reported that reduced novel P3a amplitude was predictive of conversion in a Chinese cohort. Foss-Feig et al. [53] expanded on this work within a NAPLS2 sub-cohort of CHR with comorbid autism spectrum disorder (ASD), given higher rates of psychosis in ASD compared to the general population. Of note, the investigators not only reported that P300 amplitude differentially predicted conversion to psychosis among CHR, but also that comorbid ASD moderated this relationship [53]. Though prior literature supports the association between a smaller P300 amplitude and conversion to psychosis, their findings suggested that a greater P300 amplitude was associated with conversion among CHR with a history of ASD [53]. Within the realm of sensory registration, a recent study by Duncan et al. [54] from the NAPLS2 consortium reported that a reduction in N100 amplitude measured in the auditory oddball task was predictive of conversion to psychosis in CHR. The investigators found that a smaller N100 amplitude in response to both standard and novel stimuli was predictive of conversion to psychosis [54]. Furthermore, a smaller N100 amplitude was associated with shorter time to conversion for both standard and novel stimuli [54].
Newer developments in repetition positivity (RP)—another component of predictive coding—and mismatch negativity (MMN) have also surfaced in recent years. Hamilton et al. [55••] reported that, among CHR not receiving antipsychotics at baseline, an attenuated MMN amplitude in a double deviant paradigm was associated with both conversion to psychosis and decreased time to conversion. Fryer et al. [56] determined that CHR-C had greater deficits in response to late-appearing standards compared to CHR-NC whose symptoms had remitted in the NAPLS2 cohort. The group also observed that a greater reduction in RP was predictive of shorter time to conversion among those not receiving pharmacotherapy [56].
PPI of the startle response is an index of sensorimotor gating that has been shown to be deficient in individuals in the psychosis spectrum [57,58,59], CHR [60, 61], and translational models of psychosis [62, 63]. Prior to 2019, only one study [46] assessed PPI in CHR participants who later converted to psychosis. Cadenhead [46] found that a small sample of CHR-C had greater PPI than CHR-NC. Since 2019, Cadenhead et al. [64] have published on a larger cohort from the NAPLS2 sample and did not find any PPI differences between CHR-C and CHR-NC but, within the CHR-C sample, age was significantly correlated with PPI (greater with advancing age and not typical of normally developing adolescents), replicating a previous age finding [46], that provided evidence of neurodevelopmental differences in the sample who later converted to psychosis. In addition, the startle response latency, a measure of neural processing speed, was greater in CHR-C compared to CHR-NC, with greater predictive power than clinical symptoms in predicting future psychosis in female CHR. It is therefore possible that slow neural processing represents a potential biomarker of psychosis risk in female CHR. Both the PPI developmental findings and startle latency can be studied in translational models, perhaps providing further insight into brain changes that predict future psychosis.
In summary, research in electrophysiological biomarkers has continued to flourish in the last few years, with considerable traction gained in the study of P300, MMN, N100, and startle latency as predictors of conversion to psychosis. While no single neurophysiologic biomarker is claimed to be a hallmark prognostic marker, multiple measures of information processing may collectively provide insight in the prediction of conversion among CHR.
Neurocognition
Neurocognitive deficits are prominent across the psychosis spectrum [65,66,67,68], are apparent in childhood in those individuals who go on to develop schizophrenia, and tend to exacerbate before the onset of psychotic symptoms [69]. Early reports in CHR samples [67, 70,71,72] demonstrated neurocognitive deficits across multiple domains that are greatest in CHR-C. Early longitudinal studies also found a decline in neurocognitive domains such as verbal memory over time, in CHR-C [73, 74]. Larger collaborative studies [75, 76] and meta-analyses [77,78,79] later confirmed the association of neurocognitive deficits with conversion to psychosis and incorporated specific neurocognitive tests (e.g., processing speed and verbal learning and memory) into psychosis risk calculators [21] that, along with clinical and demographic data, predict psychotic conversion with greater accuracy.
Since 2019, several new meta-analyses have been published that confirm not only baseline differences [80, 81] between CHR-C versus CHR-NC but also longitudinal changes [82] and variability [83] of cognitive performance (Table 4). Millman et al. [80] reported that the domains of global cognition, processing speed, and working memory differentiated CHR-C vs CHR-NC, while Catalan et al. [81] identified verbal learning and memory as most associated with transition to psychosis. Hedges et al. [82] examined longitudinal changes and found that CHR participants, like controls, improved over time but CHR-C showed less improvement or a decline in performance on processing speed tasks compared to CHR-NC. Catalan et al. [83] evaluated within-group variability across neurocognitive domains in CHR participants and found that CHR-C showed greater variability in executive functioning compared to CHR-NC.
Recent international studies have replicated the neurocognitive findings in CHR-C [84,85,86]. As part of the SHARP study [84], CHR-C showed greater deficits in processing speed and visual learning relative to CHR-NC while Zhang et al. [85] found different patterns in adolescents vs adults. Luo et al. [86], in a sample of 115 college students, similarly reported that CHR-C exhibited poorer performance in visual learning, working memory, reasoning, and problem solving compared to CHR-NC.
Several publications have used novel analytic methods to identify neurocognitive subtypes as a means of parsing the heterogeneity among CHR [87,88,89,90]. Velthorst et al. [87], using hierarchical clustering on NAPLS1 data, found that the subgroup with significant neurocognitive impairment had the greatest risk of psychotic conversion (58%) compared to mildly impaired (24%) or normal/high performance (10.3%) subgroups. Similarly, Haddad et al. [88] performed a latent profile analysis and found that the class with low neurocognitive performance and decreased expression of emotion was more likely to convert to psychosis. Zhang et al. [91], using canonical correlation and hierarchical cluster analyses, found that the subtype characterized by negative symptoms and cognitive deficits had the highest risk for psychosis. Kim et al. [90] analyzed multiple psychosis risk factors and found that the neurocognitive factor was the most predictive of later conversion.
Taken together, neurocognitive deficits (both at baseline and longitudinally) are a robust predictor of psychotic conversion in cross-cultural CHR populations. Neurocognitive performance, when combined with symptom and demographic risk factors for psychosis, increases the predictive power of psychosis risk calculators with potential utility in identifying CHR subtypes with varying degrees of risk and individualized treatment needs.
Fluid Biomarkers
Immune, neuroendocrine, and metabolic dysregulation are likely linked in the pathophysiology of psychotic disorders [92,93,94]. Importantly, groundbreaking studies have explored how various fluid biomarkers linked to these domains and genetics may influence psychotic illness and whether they may help to elucidate and predict future psychotic illness in CHR participants (Table 5) [95,96,97,98,99,100].
Perkins et al. [98], in their study utilizing a plasma biomarker assay, found that 15 largely immunomodulatory and neurohormonal biomarkers helped distinguish CHR-C from CHR-NC in the NAPLS2 sample. While a recent meta-analysis [101] found no significant trends in inflammatory biomarkers levels in CHR-C vs CHR-NC, studies since continue to identify potential immunomodulatory biomarkers. In a recent study by Ouyang et al. [102], CHR-C had higher levels of TNF-β and IL-17 than CHR-NC, again suggesting that immune dysregulation may characterize psychotic conversion. Zhang et al. [103] investigated whether an imbalance of Th1 and Th2 cytokines was linked to conversion risk, finding that lower IL-1β coupled with a decreased IL-1β/IL-6 ratio was associated with an increased risk of conversion among CHR participants from the SHARP study. Linked to immune dysregulation is hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis dysfunction and in a follow-up to the original report by Walker et al. [104], Worthington et al. [105] reported that higher levels of salivary cortisol predicted psychotic conversion in the NAPLS2 cohort and found including cortisol in the NAPLS Psychosis Risk Calculator improved its predictive accuracy (see “Prediction Models” section below).
The increased prevalence of cardiometabolic abnormalities in antipsychotic naive CHR populations has been described [106], and recent studies have looked at metabolic markers for CHR conversion. In a European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene-Environment Interactions (EU-GEI) study population [107], a machine learning model distinguished between CHR-NC and CHR-C based on a baseline serum lipid profile, with ether phospholipids in particular being at lower levels in CHR-C. Li et al. [99] used a metabolomic approach to identify potential biomarkers and found that changes in unsaturated fatty acid synthesis and elevated 1-stearoyl-2-arachidonoyl-sn-glycerol plasma concentration characterized CHR-C.
Similar to metabolomic approaches, proteomic studies facilitate the discovery of potential biomarkers for psychiatric illness [108]. Mongan et al. [109] utilized proteomic data in an EU-GEI CHR cohort to develop models that were able to effectively predict conversion. In this study, proteins involved in the complement system and coagulation cascade were differentially expressed in participants who converted to psychosis, in line with prior evidence of immune dysregulation and inflammation influencing conversion [109].
Given that there is not one genetic locus that has a large influence on the development of psychotic illness, polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed utilizing genome-wide association studies to quantify combined genetic susceptibility for an illness [110]. Perkins et al. [111••] utilized a PRS in CHR in the NAPLS2 sample and found that in the European participants, the PRS was higher in CHR-C compared to CHR-NC, whereas for non-Europeans, no such difference was found; adding this study’s PRS to the NAPLS Psychosis Risk Calculator enhanced the prediction of individual risk (see “Prediction Models” section below).
Prediction Models
Determining individual risk for conversion to psychosis remains an important challenge in psychiatry, as it has major public health implications. In 2016, Cannon et al. [21] published their work on the Psychosis Risk Calculator developed from the NAPLS2 cohort, using clinical, demographic, and neurocognitive variables—increased unusual thought content and suspiciousness, reduced social functioning, diminished processing speed, decreased verbal learning and memory performance, and younger age at baseline—to predict conversion using time-to-event analysis. Their model determined that the 2-year conversion risk among CHR subjects was 16% with a concordance index (C-index) of 0.71, suggesting good discrimination. The NAPLS Psychosis Risk Calculator was the first of its kind and set forth a push for replication, more rigorous variable selection, the addition of biomarkers, and improved model performance [112,113,114,115].
Since 2019 (Table 6), several innovative studies have been done that not only validate existing models but aim to improve on the predictive power of psychosis risk calculators using new technologies and analytic techniques. As part of the Harmonization of At Risk Multisite Observational Networks for Youth (HARMONY) collaboration, Koutsouleris et al. [116] tested the generalizability and prognostic value of the NAPLS Psychosis Risk Calculator in the Personalised Prognostic Tools for Early Psychosis Management (PRONIA) cohort and found good prediction after model calibration to account for sample differences. Zhang et al. [117] developed the SHARP Risk Calculator (SHARP-RC) that used a convenient smartphone-based tool along with clinical predictors and found excellent discriminatory accuracy for psychotic conversion that was then replicated in an independent sample. Ciarleglio et al. [14] developed a prediction model that identified visual perceptual abnormalities, dysphoric mood, unusual thought content, disorganized communication, and violent ideation as having the largest effect sizes. Brodey et al. [118] developed and validated the Early Psychosis Screener for Internet (EPSI) that utilized Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers. The EPSI tool when combined with the Structured Interview for Psychosis Risk Syndromes (SIPS) increased the combined positive predicted value of the model [118]. A transdiagnostic prediction model previously developed by Fusar-Poli et al. [115] was readapted and applied to a US electronic health record (EHR)–based study of over 2 million subjects, resulting in a C-index of 0.68 and suggestive of transportability to a distinct population abroad [119]. Due to its potential for clinical utility as evidenced by repeated external validation in multiple settings, the EHR tool has been piloted for use in clinical practice within the UK [119].
Many of the biomarkers described previously in this review have also been incorporated into psychosis risk calculators to improve predictive power. Collins et al. [23••] found that percent cortical thickness change in the left hemisphere performed well in a predictive model from the NAPLS3 consortium differentiating CHR-C vs CHR-NC. In a small sample, Kegeles et al. [120] developed a model with striatal glutamate 1H MRS and visual perceptual abnormalities in the Columbia Risk Calculator and found a high area under the curve (AUC). The PRONIA study employed a multimodal machine learning model including structural MRI and psychosis polygenic risk scores, in addition to clinical and neurocognitive predictors, to predict conversion among CHR individuals [121]. They demonstrated that clinician-based classification had a higher specificity, whereas their model was highly sensitive; however, combined human–machine classification had a balanced accuracy in predicting conversion [121]. Kristensen et al. [29] incorporated global FA into a multivariate prediction model finding excellent sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Dickins et al. [107] used a machine learning approach to develop a model using serum lipids and was able to differentiate CHR-C from CHR-NC groups. Cadenhead et al. [64] added startle response latency to the clinical symptoms used in the NAPLS Psychosis Risk Calculator and found that in female CHR startle latency had a higher AUC than the clinical symptoms in predicting psychosis. Furthermore, Worthington et al. [105] included salivary cortisol in the NAPLS Psychosis Risk Calculator and achieved a good C-index. As previously noted, Mongan et al. [109] developed a well-performing model that incorporated proteomic and clinical data of individuals sampled from the EU-GEI and the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children samples. Perkins et al. [111••] added the PRS to the NAPLS Psychosis Risk Calculator and found that, with the exception of clinical symptoms, the PRS contributed as much or more than other variables in the calculator in predicting conversion and was significantly correlated with the two neurocognitive domains—processing speed and verbal memory—that are part of the calculator.
Over the last few decades, advancements in technology and predictive models have offered new approaches to predicting risk of conversion among CHR individuals. Since the emergence of COVID-19, digital psychiatry, in particular, has rapidly evolved as a field, with pilot studies and interventions adopting new technologies in both mental health care and research [122]. Various data types and modalities, spanning passive smartphone sensing to self-reported data collection via mobile device apps, have been utilized to study behavior and cognition [123], measure symptom burden [124, 125], and predict early stages of relapse [126,127,128,129] among individuals with established psychotic disorders. However, digital phenotyping of CHR individuals prior to developing first-episode psychosis (FEP) remains poorly characterized [130].
With a treasure trove of clinical and biomedical data available, discussion of best practices for building diagnostic and prognostic models is vital. Issues with data-driven research include the use of multivariable models that may not be informed by a priori selection of predictors stemming from clinical and epidemiologic expertise, as well as limited statistical power due to small sample sizes, thereby negatively impacting the predictive accuracy of statistical models [131]. Attention must also be directed toward identifying predictors of remission among CHR individuals who do not experience FEP [132], as well as more efficacious interventions for those eventually identified as high-risk for conversion [100]. Lastly, considerable variability in patient samples, clinical presentations, quantitative methods, and sociocultural contexts complicates the implementation of models in psychiatric practice [133]. However, improved predictive capability of models within recent years has encouraged translation of promising models, but to fully understand their utility in clinical care, pursuit of net benefit analyses is recommended.
Interventions
While the primary focus of intervention research for CHR populations in recent years has been to synthesize knowledge of treatments which effectively address symptoms and functioning, since 2019 several studies have reviewed the literature on interventions in the context of conversion to psychosis and there have been several clinical trials (Table 7) [134,135,136,137]. Interventions that have historically been used to treat symptoms in CHR populations include cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), low-dose antipsychotic medication, other medication interventions for comorbid symptoms, anti-inflammatory interventions, and cognitive remediation [136, 138]. Devoe et al. [137] performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate interventions focused on conversion to psychosis. They found that there was a reduced risk for conversion favoring CBT at 12 and 18 months but no interventions were significantly more effective at reducing conversions compared with all other interventions in network meta-analyses [137]. As part of a Cochrane Review [136], Kuharic et al. compared transition rates across different interventions and found no discernable treatment effects on conversion, with the exception of a slightly lower conversion rate among CHR individuals taking Omega-3 supplements compared to placebo in a single study [139]. The Omega-3 trial was repeated as part of the NEURAPRO trial by McGorry et al. [140], but this initially promising finding was unable to be replicated. In a comprehensive meta-analysis of interventions for CHR with a primary outcome of transition to psychosis, Mei et al. [135] found the pooled effect of CBT on the prevention of psychosis at 12 months to be significantly greater than that of comparable interventions, further emphasizing the therapeutic efficacy of CBT to reduce symptoms and possibly prevent the onset of psychosis among CHR youth. In a naturalistic study design in CHR participants who were more symptomatic, Zhang et al. [141] examined the effect of antipsychotic medication on reducing risk of psychotic conversion and found no difference in the conversion rate among those taking antipsychotic medication versus those who were not. Despite much effort, there is little consensus on effective interventions to prevent transition to psychosis in CHR samples [138].
Several studies geared toward trialing interventions in CHR or creating space to test new interventions are fast emerging across the globe [134, 142]. This movement is evident in the funding of major recent research initiatives such as the NIMH biomarker–based research consortia Accelerating Medicines Partnership Program-Schizophrenia (AMP-SCZ) that brings together international researchers to develop better prediction models for conversion and will provide a platform to test novel interventions [143, 144]. The Psychosis Risk Outcomes Network (PRONET) study is a branch of the initiative that aims to map biomarkers, clinical and neuropsychological phenotypes of CHR onto clinical outcomes including conversion to test predictive models and trajectories of CHR [143]. Consistent with the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) approach to studying psychiatric disorders, recent field-wide emphasis has been placed on identifying modifiable biological treatment targets for CHR as well as on developing interventions that reduce risk for conversion across diverse CHR populations [145]. Predictive models described above may assist in identifying those individuals at elevated risk for conversion who may be appropriate for future treatment studies and clinical treatment trials.
Conclusions
CHR research over the past few decades has provided important insights into (i) risk factors for conversion to full psychotic illness within a 2–3-year period, (ii) the development of psychosis risk calculators [21], (iii) biomarkers linked to psychosis risk [98, 104, 146, 147], and (iv) evidence of dynamic brain changes [36] that are likely present before the onset of illness and continue to evolve into FEP and more chronic forms of psychosis. Despite these advances in our understanding of the CHR state, longer-term outcomes (5 + years), including eventual diagnoses, have been seldom investigated in the CHR population. Long-term follow-up of CHR individuals provides a unique and rare opportunity to investigate the full trajectory of illness from CHR to first episode to chronic illness.
The CHR criteria identify a heterogeneous population with not only sub-syndromal psychotic symptoms but neurocognitive deficits, comorbid mood, anxiety, and trauma-related symptoms, along with significant social and role functioning problems [148]. Meta-analyses show that 20–30% [149] develop psychosis within 2 years and one-third of known psychotic conversions occur after 2 years [150]. The question of how many conversions occur after 5 years has not been extensively studied in a prospective longitudinal follow-up design. Retrospective studies suggest that the prodromal phase of illness can last up to 20 years [151], but it is unclear which early CHR characteristics predict a later vs early psychotic conversion, affective vs non-affective psychosis, or good vs poor functional outcome.
Substantial evidence already exists for multiple biomarker abnormalities in CHR [76, 98, 104, 147, 152,153,154]. Specifically, CHR youth show deficits in neurocognition [76], regional cortical gray matter [153], and ERP amplitudes [147, 154], as well as higher PRS [152], inflammatory markers [98], and cortisol [104], relative to comparison subjects. Biomarkers also predict who will convert to psychosis [104, 147, 153, 154] at 2 years and add to the predictive power of psychosis risk calculators.
With NIMH initiatives such as AMP-SCZ, it will be possible to bring together the rapidly developing research in biomarkers and prediction algorithms to investigate treatments linked to the identified neurobiological mechanisms and perhaps individualize interventions based on each person’s unique biological signature.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance
McGlashan TH, Walsh B, Woods SW. The psychosis-risk syndrome: handbook for diagnosis and follow-up. Oxford University Press. 2010.
Cannon TD, Cadenhead K, Cornblatt B, Woods SW, Addington J, Walker E, et al. Prediction of psychosis in youth at high clinical risk: a multisite longitudinal study in North America. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65(1):28–37.
Addington J. The prodromal stage of psychotic illness: observation, detection or intervention? J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2003;28(2):93–7.
Fusar-Poli P, Bonoldi I, Yung AR, Borgwardt S, Kempton MJ, Valmaggia L, et al. Predicting psychosis: meta-analysis of transition outcomes in individuals at high clinical risk. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69(3):220–9.
Gee DG, Cannon TD. Prediction of conversion to psychosis: review and future directions. Braz J Psychiatry. 2011;33(Suppl 2):s129–42.
Addington J, Cadenhead KS, Cannon TD, Cornblatt B, McGlashan TH, Perkins DO, et al. North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study: a collaborative multisite approach to prodromal schizophrenia research. Schizophr Bull. 2007;33(3):665–72.
Salazar de Pablo G, Radua J, Pereira J, Bonoldi I, Arienti V, Besana F, et al. Probability of transition to psychosis in individuals at clinical high risk: an updated meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiat. 2021;78(9):970–8.
Addington J, Farris M, Devoe D, Metzak P. Progression from being at-risk to psychosis: next steps. NPJ Schizophr. 2020;6(1):27.
Addington J, Stowkowy J, Liu L, Cadenhead KS, Cannon TD, Cornblatt BA, et al. Clinical and functional characteristics of youth at clinical high-risk for psychosis who do not transition to psychosis. Psychol Med. 2019;49(10):1670–7.
Allswede DM, Addington J, Bearden CE, Cadenhead KS, Cornblatt BA, Mathalon DH, et al. Characterizing covariant trajectories of individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis across symptomatic and functional domains. Am J Psychiatry. 2020;177(2):164–71.
Addington J, Farris M, Stowkowy J, Santesteban-Echarri O, Metzak P, Kalathil MS. Predictors of transition to psychosis in individuals at clinical high risk. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2019;21(6):39.
Bechdolf A, Thompson A, Nelson B, Cotton S, Simmons MB, Amminger GP, et al. Experience of trauma and conversion to psychosis in an ultra-high-risk (prodromal) group. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2010;121(5):377–84.
Brucato G, Masucci MD, Arndt LY, Ben-David S, Colibazzi T, Corcoran CM, et al. Baseline demographics, clinical features and predictors of conversion among 200 individuals in a longitudinal prospective psychosis-risk cohort. Psychol Med. 2017;47(11):1923–35.
Ciarleglio AJ, Brucato G, Masucci MD, Altschuler R, Colibazzi T, Corcoran CM, et al. A predictive model for conversion to psychosis in clinical high-risk patients. Psychol Med. 2019;49(7):1128–37.
Montemagni C, Bellino S, Bracale N, Bozzatello P, Rocca P. Models predicting psychosis in patients with high clinical risk: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:223.
Bjornestad J, Tjora T, Langeveld JH, Stain HJ, Joa I, Johannessen JO, et al. Exploring specific predictors of psychosis onset over a 2-year period: a decision-tree model. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2022;16(4):363–70.
Riecher-Rössler A, Studerus E. Prediction of conversion to psychosis in individuals with an at-risk mental state: a brief update on recent developments. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2017;30(3):209–19.
•• Bolhuis K, Lång U, Gyllenberg D, Kääriälä A, Veijola J, Gissler M, et al. Hospital presentation for self-harm in youth as a risk marker for later psychotic and bipolar disorders: a cohort study of 59 476 Finns. Schizophr Bull. 2021;47(6):1685–94. Assessed individuals born in Finland in 1987 and found that of those who presented to the hospital for self-harm, 12.8% went on to receive a diagnosis of psychosis and 9.4% a diagnosis of bipolar disorder by 28 years of age. The investigators also found that younger age of first self-harm was associated with higher risk of conversion; 29.1% of those who presented with self-harm before the age of 18 developed a psychotic or bipolar disorder.
Barbato M, Liu L, Bearden CE, Cadenhead KS, Cornblatt BA, Keshavan M, et al. Migrant status, clinical symptoms and functional outcome in youth at clinical high risk for psychosis: findings from the NAPLS-3 study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2022.
Tronick LN, Mirzakhanian H, Addington J, Bearden CE, Cannon TD, Cornblatt BA, et al. Risk of violent behaviour in young people at clinical high risk for psychosis from the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Studies consortium. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2023.
Cannon TD, Yu C, Addington J, Bearden CE, Cadenhead KS, Cornblatt BA, et al. An Individualized risk calculator for research in prodromal psychosis. Am J Psychiatry. 2016;173(10):980–8.
Lång U, Yates K, Leacy FP, Clarke MC, McNicholas F, Cannon M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: psychosis risk in children and adolescents with an at-risk mental state. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022;61(5):615–25.
•• Collins MA, Ji JL, Chung Y, Lympus CA, Afriyie-Agyemang Y, Addington JM, et al. Accelerated cortical thinning precedes and predicts conversion to psychosis: The NAPLS3 longitudinal study of youth at clinical high-risk. Mol Psychiatry. 2022. CHR-C vs CHR-NC from the NAPLS3 sample had greater cortical thinning over time in the prefrontal, temporal, and parietal cortical regions.
Pantelis C, Velakoulis D, McGorry PD, Wood SJ, Suckling J, Phillips LJ, et al. Neuroanatomical abnormalities before and after onset of psychosis: a cross-sectional and longitudinal MRI comparison. Lancet. 2003;361(9354):281–8.
Borgwardt SJ, McGuire PK, Aston J, Gschwandtner U, Pflüger MO, Stieglitz RD, et al. Reductions in frontal, temporal and parietal volume associated with the onset of psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2008;106(2–3):108–14.
Sun D, Phillips L, Velakoulis D, Yung A, McGorry PD, Wood SJ, et al. Progressive brain structural changes mapped as psychosis develops in “at risk” individuals. Schizophr Res. 2009;108(1–3):85–92.
Smieskova R, Fusar-Poli P, Allen P, Bendfeldt K, Stieglitz RD, Drewe J, et al. Neuroimaging predictors of transition to psychosis–a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010;34(8):1207–22.
Del Re EC, Stone WS, Bouix S, Seitz J, Zeng V, Guliano A, et al. Baseline cortical thickness reductions in clinical high risk for psychosis: brain regions associated with conversion to psychosis versus non-conversion as assessed at one-year follow-up in the Shanghai-At-Risk-for-Psychosis (SHARP) study. Schizophr Bull. 2021;47(2):562–74.
Kristensen TD, Glenthøj LB, Ambrosen K, Syeda W, Ragahava JM, Krakauer K, et al. Global fractional anisotropy predicts transition to psychosis after 12 months in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2021;144(5):448–63.
Nägele FL, Pasternak O, Bitzan LV, Mußmann M, Rauh J, Kubicki M, et al. Cellular and extracellular white matter alterations indicate conversion to psychosis among individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2021;22(3):214–27.
León-Ortiz P, Reyes-Madrigal F, Kochunov P, Gómez-Cruz G, Moncada-Habib T, Malacara M, et al. White matter alterations and the conversion to psychosis: a combined diffusion tensor imaging and glutamate. Schizophr Res. 2022;249:85–92.
Anticevic A, Haut K, Murray JD, Repovs G, Yang GJ, Diehl C, et al. Association of thalamic dysconnectivity and conversion to psychosis in youth and young adults at elevated clinical risk. JAMA Psychiat. 2015;72(9):882–91.
Cao H, Chén OY, Chung Y, Forsyth JK, McEwen SC, Gee DG, et al. Cerebello-thalamo-cortical hyperconnectivity as a state-independent functional neural signature for psychosis prediction and characterization. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):3836.
Collin G, Seidman LJ, Keshavan MS, Stone WS, Qi Z, Zhang T, et al. Functional connectome organization predicts conversion to psychosis in clinical high-risk youth from the SHARP program. Mol Psychiatry. 2020;25(10):2431–40.
•• Chen OY, Cao H, Phan H, Nagels G, Reinen JM, Gou J, et al. Identifying neural signatures mediating behavioral symptoms and psychosis onset: High-dimensional whole brain functional mediation analysis. Neuroimage. 2021;226:117508. In an fMRI study of resting state, CHR-C vs CHR-NC from the NAPLS2 sample had increased activity in frontoparietal network, inferior temporal gyrus, cerebellum, negative mediators included DMN, thalamus, visual cortex, cerebellar lobe 8 assessed.
Cao H, Chung Y, McEwen SC, Bearden CE, Addington J, Goodyear B, et al. Progressive reconfiguration of resting-state brain networks as psychosis develops: preliminary results from the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) consortium. Schizophr Res. 2020;226:30–7.
de la Fuente-Sandoval C, Leon-Ortiz P, Azcarraga M, Favila R, Stephano S, Graff-Guerrero A. Striatal glutamate and the conversion to psychosis: a prospective 1H-MRS imaging study. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2013;16(2):471–5.
de la Fuente-Sandoval C, Leon-Ortiz P, Favila R, Stephano S, Mamo D, Ramirez-Bermudez J, et al. Higher levels of glutamate in the associative-striatum of subjects with prodromal symptoms of schizophrenia and patients with first-episode psychosis. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011;36(9):1781–91.
Bustillo JR, Rowland LM, Mullins P, Jung R, Chen H, Qualls C, et al. 1H-MRS at 4 tesla in minimally treated early schizophrenia. Mol Psychiatry. 2010;15(6):629–36.
Kegeles LS, Mao X, Stanford AD, Girgis R, Ojeil N, Xu X, et al. Elevated prefrontal cortex gamma-aminobutyric acid and glutamate-glutamine levels in schizophrenia measured in vivo with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69(5):449–59.
Stone JM, Day F, Tsagaraki H, Valli I, McLean MA, Lythgoe DJ, et al. Glutamate dysfunction in people with prodromal symptoms of psychosis: relationship to gray matter volume. Biol Psychiatry. 2009;66(6):533–9.
Provenzano FA, Guo J, Wall MM, Feng X, Sigmon HC, Brucato G, et al. Hippocampal pathology in clinical high-risk patients and the onset of schizophrenia. Biol Psychiat. 2020;87(3):234–42.
Bossong MG, Antoniades M, Azis M, Samson C, Quinn B, Bonoldi I, et al. Association of hippocampal glutamate levels with adverse outcomes in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis. JAMA Psychiat. 2019;76(2):199–207.
Cadenhead KS, de la Fuente-Sandoval C. Insights into new treatments for early psychosis from genetic, neurodevelopment, and cognitive neuroscience research. In: S. M. Silverstein BM, Wykes T, editor. Schizophrenia: evolution and synthesis. Strüngmann Forum Reports,. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.; 2013.
Cadenhead KS, Light GA, Shafer KM, Braff DL. P50 suppression in individuals at risk for schizophrenia: the convergence of clinical, familial, and vulnerability marker risk assessment. Biol Psychiatry. 2005;57(12):1504–9.
Cadenhead KS. Startle reactivity and prepulse inhibition in prodromal and early psychosis: effects of age, antipsychotics, tobacco and cannabis in a vulnerable population. Psychiatry Res. 2011;188(2):208–16.
Donkers FC, Schwikert SR, Evans AM, Cleary KM, Perkins DO, Belger A. Impaired neural synchrony in the theta frequency range in adolescents at familial risk for schizophrenia. Front Psychiatry. 2011;2:51.
Jahshan C, Cadenhead KS, Rissling AJ, Kirihara K, Braff DL, Light GA. Automatic sensory information processing abnormalities across the illness course of schizophrenia. Psychol Med. 2012;42(1):85–97.
van Tricht MJ, Nieman DH, Koelman JH, van der Meer JN, Bour LJ, de Haan L, et al. Reduced parietal P300 amplitude is associated with an increased risk for a first psychotic episode. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;68(7):642–8.
Lee SY, Namkoong K, Cho HH, Song DH, An SK. Reduced visual P300 amplitudes in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis and first-episode schizophrenia. Neurosci Lett. 2010;486(3):156–60.
•• Hamilton HK, Roach BJ, Bachman PM, Belger A, Carrion RE, Duncan E, et al. Association between P300 responses to auditory oddball stimuli and clinical outcomes in the psychosis risk syndrome. JAMA Psychiat. 2019;76(11):1187–97. In the NAPLS2 cohort, CHR-C vs CHR-NC had smaller auditory target P3b amplitude and this biomarker predicted shorter time to conversion.
Tang Y, Wang J, Zhang T, Xu L, Qian Z, Cui H, et al. P300 as an index of transition to psychosis and of remission: data from a clinical high risk for psychosis study and review of literature. Schizophr Res. 2020;226:74–83.
Foss-Feig JH, Guillory SB, Roach BJ, Velthorst E, Hamilton H, Bachman P, et al. Abnormally large baseline P300 amplitude is associated with conversion to psychosis in clinical high risk individuals with a history of autism: a pilot study. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:591127.
Duncan E, Roach BJ, Massa N, Hamilton HK, Bachman PM, Belger A, et al. Auditory N100 amplitude deficits predict conversion to psychosis in the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study (NAPLS-2) cohort. Schizophr Res. 2022;248:89–97.
•• Hamilton HK, Roach BJ, Bachman PM, Belger A, Carrión RE, Duncan E, et al. Mismatch negativity in response to auditory deviance and risk for future psychosis in youth at clinical high risk for psychosis. JAMA Psychiat. 2022;79(8):780–9. In NAPLS2 consortium, CHR-C vs CHR-NC had greater deficits in MMN amplitude in double deviant paradigm that was also associated with shorter time to conversion.
Fryer SL, Roach BJ, Hamilton HK, Bachman P, Belger A, Carrión RE, et al. Deficits in auditory predictive coding in individuals with the psychosis risk syndrome: prediction of conversion to psychosis. J Abnorm Psychol. 2020;129(6):599–611.
Braff DL, Grillon C, Geyer MA. Gating and habituation of the startle reflex in schizophrenic patients. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992;49(3):206–15.
Cadenhead KS, Swerdlow NR, Shafer KM, Diaz M, Braff DL. Modulation of the startle response and startle laterality in relatives of schizophrenic patients and in subjects with schizotypal personality disorder: evidence of inhibitory deficits. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(10):1660–8.
Cadenhead KS, Geyer MA, Braff DL. Impaired startle prepulse inhibition and habituation in patients with schizotypal personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(12):1862–7.
Quednow BB, Csomor PA, Chmiel J, Beck T, Vollenweider FX. Sensorimotor gating and attentional set-shifting are improved by the mu-opioid receptor agonist morphine in healthy human volunteers. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2008;11(5):655–69.
Ziermans T, Schothorst P, Magnee M, van Engeland H, Kemner C. Reduced prepulse inhibition in adolescents at risk for psychosis: a 2-year follow-up study. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2011;36(2):127–34.
Powell SB, Geyer MA. Developmental markers of psychiatric disorders as identified by sensorimotor gating. Neurotox Res. 2002;4(5–6):489–502.
Swerdlow NR, Braff DL, Geyer MA. Cross-species studies of sensorimotor gating of the startle reflex. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;877(2):202–16.
Cadenhead KS, Duncan E, Addington J, Bearden C, Cannon TD, Cornblatt BA, et al. Evidence of slow neural processing, developmental differences and sensitivity to cannabis effects in a sample at clinical high risk for psychosis from the NAPLS consortium assessed with the human startle paradigm. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:833.
Cadenhead KS, Perry W, Shafer K, Braff DL. Cognitive functions in schizotypal personality disorder. Schizophr Res. 1999;37(2):123–32.
Cannon TD, Zorrilla LE, Shtasel D, Gur RE, Gur RC, Marco EJ, et al. Neuropsychological functioning in siblings discordant for schizophrenia and healthy volunteers. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(8):651–61.
Hawkins KA, Addington J, Keefe RS, Christensen B, Perkins DO, Zipurksy R, et al. Neuropsychological status of subjects at high risk for a first episode of psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2004;67(2–3):115–22.
Heinrichs RW, Zakzanis KK. Neurocognitive deficit in schizophrenia: a quantitative review of the evidence. Neuropsychology. 1998;12(3):426–45.
Bilder RM, Reiter G, Bates J, Lencz T, Szeszko P, Goldman RS, et al. Cognitive development in schizophrenia: follow-back from the first episode. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2006;28(2):270–82.
Eastvold AD, Heaton RK, Cadenhead KS. Neurocognitive deficits in the (putative) prodrome and first episode of psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2007;93(1–3):266–77.
Hambrecht M, Lammertink M, Klosterkotter J, Matuschek E, Pukrop R. Subjective and objective neuropsychological abnormalities in a psychosis prodrome clinic. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2002;43:s30–7.
Brewer WJ, Francey SM, Wood SJ, Jackson HJ, Pantelis C, Phillips LJ, et al. Memory impairments identified in people at ultra-high risk for psychosis who later develop first-episode psychosis. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(1):71–8.
Whyte MC, Brett C, Harrison LK, Byrne M, Miller P, Lawrie SM, et al. Neuropsychological performance over time in people at high risk of developing schizophrenia and controls. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59(8):730–9.
Jahshan C, Heaton RK, Golshan S, Cadenhead KS. Course of neurocognitive deficits in the prodrome and first episode of schizophrenia. Neuropsychology. 2010;24(1):109–20.
Riecher-Rossler A, Pflueger MO, Aston J, Borgwardt SJ, Brewer WJ, Gschwandtner U, et al. Efficacy of using cognitive status in predicting psychosis: a 7-year follow-up. Biol Psychiatry. 2009;66(11):1023–30.
Seidman LJ, Giuliano AJ, Meyer EC, Addington J, Cadenhead KS, Cannon TD, et al. Neuropsychology of the prodrome to psychosis in the NAPLS consortium: relationship to family history and conversion to psychosis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(6):578–88.
Giuliano AJ, Li H, Mesholam-Gately RI, Sorenson SM, Woodberry KA, Seidman LJ. Neurocognition in the psychosis risk syndrome: a quantitative and qualitative review. Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18(4):399–415.
Hauser M, Zhang JP, Sheridan EM, Burdick KE, Mogil R, Kane JM, et al. Neuropsychological test performance to enhance identification of subjects at clinical high risk for psychosis and to be most promising for predictive algorithms for conversion to psychosis: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2017;78(1):e28–40.
De Herdt A, Wampers M, Vancampfort D, De Hert M, Vanhees L, Demunter H, et al. Neurocognition in clinical high risk young adults who did or did not convert to a first schizophrenic psychosis: a meta-analysis. Schizophr Res. 2013;149(1–3):48–55.
Millman ZB, Roemer C, Vargas T, Schiffman J, Mittal VA, Gold JM. Neuropsychological performance among individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis vs putatively low-risk peers with other psychopathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull. 2022;48(5):999–1010.
Catalan A, Salazar de Pablo G, Aymerich C, Damiani S, Sordi V, Radua J, et al. Neurocognitive functioning in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiat. 2021;78(8):859–67.
Hedges EP, See C, Si S, McGuire P, Dickson H, Kempton MJ. Meta-analysis of longitudinal neurocognitive performance in people at clinical high-risk for psychosis. Psychol Med. 2022;52(11):2009–16.
Catalan A, Radua J, McCutcheon R, Aymerich C, Pedruzo B, Gonzalez-Torres MA, et al. Examining the variability of neurocognitive functioning in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: a meta-analysis. Transl Psychiatry. 2022;12(1):198.
Cui H, Giuliano AJ, Zhang T, Xu L, Wei Y, Tang Y, et al. Cognitive dysfunction in a psychotropic medication-naive, clinical high-risk sample from the ShangHai-At-Risk-for-Psychosis (SHARP) study: associations with clinical outcomes. Schizophr Res. 2020;226:138–46.
Zhang T, Cui H, Wei Y, Tang X, Xu L, Hu Y, et al. Neurocognitive assessments are more important among adolescents than adults for predicting psychosis in clinical high risk. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2022;7(1):56–65.
Luo X, Zhang L, Zhang J, Chen H, Hong H, Luo R, et al. Changes in the cognitive function of Chinese college students with a clinical high risk of psychosis. Psychiatry Res. 2021;305:114242.
Velthorst E, Meyer EC, Giuliano AJ, Addington J, Cadenhead KS, Cannon TD, et al. Neurocognitive profiles in the prodrome to psychosis in NAPLS-1. Schizophr Res. 2019;204:311–9.
Haddad NM, Hortencio L, Andrade JC, Serpa MH, Alves TM, van de Bilt MT, et al. Cognitive patterns and conversion in a representative sample of individuals at risk for psychosis. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022;210(5):335–41.
Zhang T, Wang J, Xu L, Wei Y, Tang X, Hu Y, et al. Subtypes of clinical high risk for psychosis that predict antipsychotic effectiveness in long-term remission. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2021;54(1):23–30.
Kim HK, Park HY, Seo E, Bang M, Song YY, Lee SY, et al. Factors associated with psychosocial functioning and outcome of individuals with recent-onset schizophrenia and at ultra-high risk for psychosis. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:459.
Zhang T, Tang X, Li H, Woodberry KA, Kline ER, Xu L, et al. Clinical subtypes that predict conversion to psychosis: a canonical correlation analysis study from the ShangHai At Risk for Psychosis program. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2020;54(5):482–95.
Delaney S, Fallon B, Alaedini A, Yolken R, Indart A, Feng T, et al. Inflammatory biomarkers in psychosis and clinical high risk populations. Schizophr Res. 2019;206:440–3.
McCarthy MJ. Oxidative stress: a link between cardiovascular disease and psychiatric illness? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014;130(3):161–2.
Glassman M, Wehring HJ, Pocivavsek A, Sullivan KM, Rowland LM, McMahon RP, et al. Peripheral cortisol and inflammatory response to a psychosocial stressor in people with schizophrenia. J Neuropsychiatry (Foster City). 2018;2(2).
Khandaker GM, Cousins L, Deakin J, Lennox BR, Yolken R, Jones PB. Inflammation and immunity in schizophrenia: implications for pathophysiology and treatment. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(3):258–70.
Khoury R, Nasrallah HA. Inflammatory biomarkers in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P): State or trait? Schizophr Res. 2018;199:31–8.
Kelsven S, de la Fuente-Sandoval C, Achim CL, Reyes-Madrigal F, Mirzakhanian H, Domingues I, et al. Immuno-inflammatory changes across phases of early psychosis: the impact of antipsychotic medication and stage of illness. Schizophr Res. 2020;226:13–23.
Perkins DO, Jeffries CD, Addington J, Bearden CE, Cadenhead KS, Cannon TD, et al. Towards a psychosis risk blood diagnostic for persons experiencing high-risk symptoms: preliminary results from the NAPLS project. Schizophr Bull. 2015;41(2):419–28.
Li Z, Zhang T, Xu L, Wei Y, Cui H, Tang Y, et al. Plasma metabolic alterations and potential biomarkers in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2022;239:19–28.
Worthington MA, Cannon TD. Prediction and prevention in the clinical high-risk for psychosis paradigm: a review of the current status and recommendations for future directions of inquiry. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:770774.
Park S, Miller BJ. Meta-analysis of cytokine and C-reactive protein levels in high-risk psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2020;226:5–12.
Ouyang L, Li D, Li Z, Ma X, Yuan L, Fan L, et al. IL-17 and TNF-β: predictive biomarkers for transition to psychosis in ultra-high risk individuals. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:1072380.
Zhang T, Zeng J, Wei Y, Ye J, Tang X, Xu L, et al. Changes in inflammatory balance correlates with conversion to psychosis among individuals at clinical high-risk: a prospective cohort study. Psychiatry Res. 2022;318:114938.
Walker EF, Trotman HD, Pearce BD, Addington J, Cadenhead KS, Cornblatt BA, et al. Cortisol levels and risk for psychosis: initial findings from the North American prodrome longitudinal study. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;74(6):410–7.
Worthington MA, Walker EF, Addington J, Bearden CE, Cadenhead KS, Cornblatt BA, et al. Incorporating cortisol into the NAPLS2 individualized risk calculator for prediction of psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2021;227:95–100.
Cadenhead KS, Minichino A, Kelsven S, Addington J, Bearden C, Cannon TD, et al. Metabolic abnormalities and low dietary Omega 3 are associated with symptom severity and worse functioning prior to the onset of psychosis: findings from the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Studies Consortium. Schizophr Res. 2019;204:96–103.
Dickens AM, Sen P, Kempton MJ, Barrantes-Vidal N, Iyegbe C, Nordentoft M, et al. Dysregulated lipid metabolism precedes onset of psychosis. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;89(3):288–97.
Wormwood KL, Aslebagh R, Channaveerappa D, Dupree EJ, Borland MM, Ryan JP, et al. Salivary proteomics and biomarkers in neurology and psychiatry. Proteomics Clin Appl. 2015;9(9–10):899–906.
Mongan D, Föcking M, Healy C, Susai SR, Heurich M, Wynne K, et al. Development of proteomic prediction models for transition to psychotic disorder in the clinical high-risk state and psychotic experiences in adolescence. JAMA Psychiat. 2021;78(1):77–90.
Murray GK, Lin T, Austin J, McGrath JJ, Hickie IB, Wray NR. Could polygenic risk scores be useful in psychiatry?: A review. JAMA Psychiat. 2021;78(2):210–9.
•• Perkins DO, Olde Loohuis L, Barbee J, Ford J, Jeffries CD, Addington J, et al. Polygenic risk score contribution to psychosis prediction in a target population of persons at clinical high risk. Am J Psychiatry. 2020;177(2):155–63. In the NAPLS2 sample, PRS was higher in CHR-C vs CHR-NC in the European sample. Incorporating PRS into NAPLS psychosis risk calculator contributed 15% risk prediction in Europeans and 7% in non-Europeans.
Carrion RE, Auther AM, McLaughlin D, Cornblatt BA. The immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on attenuated positive symptoms and functioning in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: a pilot study. Schizophr Res. 2021;236:9–11.
Zhang T, Xu L, Tang Y, Li H, Tang X, Cui H, et al. Prediction of psychosis in prodrome: development and validation of a simple, personalized risk calculator. Psychol Med. 2019;49(12):1990–8.
Mechelli A, Lin A, Wood S, McGorry P, Amminger P, Tognin S, et al. Using clinical information to make individualized prognostic predictions in people at ultra high risk for psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2017;184:32–8.
Fusar-Poli P, Rutigliano G, Stahl D, Davies C, Bonoldi I, Reilly T, et al. Development and validation of a clinically based risk calculator for the transdiagnostic prediction of psychosis. JAMA Psychiat. 2017;74(5):493–500.
Koutsouleris N, Worthington M, Dwyer DB, Kambeitz-Ilankovic L, Sanfelici R, Fusar-Poli P, et al. Toward generalizable and transdiagnostic tools for psychosis prediction: an independent validation and improvement of the NAPLS-2 risk calculator in the multisite PRONIA cohort. Biol Psychiatry. 2021;90(9):632–42.
Zhang T, Xu L, Li H, Woodberry KA, Kline ER, Jiang J, et al. Calculating individualized risk components using a mobile app-based risk calculator for clinical high risk of psychosis: findings from ShangHai At Risk for Psychosis (SHARP) program. Psychol Med. 2021;51(4):653–60.
Brodey BB, Girgis RR, Favorov OV, Bearden CE, Woods SW, Addington J, et al. The Early Psychosis Screener for Internet (EPSI)-SR: predicting 12 month psychotic conversion using machine learning. Schizophr Res. 2019;208:390–6.
Oliver D, Wong CMJ, Bøg M, Jönsson L, Kinon BJ, Wehnert A, et al. Transdiagnostic individualized clinically-based risk calculator for the automatic detection of individuals at-risk and the prediction of psychosis: external replication in 2,430,333 US patients. Transl Psychiatry. 2020;10(1):364.
Kegeles LS, Ciarleglio A, León-Ortiz P, Reyes-Madrigal F, Lieberman JA, Brucato G, et al. An imaging-based risk calculator for prediction of conversion to psychosis in clinical high-risk individuals using glutamate. Schizophr Res. 2020;226:70–3.
Koutsouleris N, Dwyer DB, Degenhardt F, Maj C, Urquijo-Castro MF, Sanfelici R, et al. Multimodal machine learning workflows for prediction of psychosis in patients with clinical high-risk syndromes and recent-onset depression. JAMA Psychiat. 2021;78(2):195–209.
Torous J, Bucci S, Bell IH, Kessing LV, Faurholt-Jepsen M, Whelan P, et al. The growing field of digital psychiatry: current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality. World Psychiatry. 2021;20(3):318–35.
Wisniewski H, Henson P, Torous J. Using a smartphone app to identify clinically relevant behavior trends. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:652.
Henson P, Barnett I, Keshavan M, Torous J. Towards clinically actionable digital phenotyping targets in schizophrenia. NPJ Schizophr. 2020;6(1):13.
Henson P, Pearson JF, Keshavan M, Torous J. Impact of dynamic greenspace exposure on symptomatology in individuals with schizophrenia. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(9):e0238498.
Ben-Zeev D, Brian R, Wang R, Wang W, Campbell AT, Aung MSH, et al. CrossCheck: integrating self-report, behavioral sensing, and smartphone use to identify digital indicators of psychotic relapse. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2017;40(3):266–75.
Barnett I, Torous J, Staples P, Sandoval L, Keshavan M, Onnela JP. Relapse prediction in schizophrenia through digital phenotyping: a pilot study. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43(8):1660–6.
Adler DA, Ben-Zeev D, Tseng VW, Kane JM, Brian R, Campbell AT, et al. Predicting early warning signs of psychotic relapse from passive sensing data: an approach using encoder-decoder neural networks. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(8):e19962.
Henson P, D’Mello R, Vaidyam A, Keshavan M, Torous J. Anomaly detection to predict relapse risk in schizophrenia. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11(1):28.
Henson P, Wisniewski H, Stromeyer Iv C, Torous J. Digital health around clinical high risk and first-episode psychosis. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020;22(11):58.
Worthington MA, Cao H, Cannon TD. Discovery and validation of prediction algorithms for psychosis in youths at clinical high risk. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2020;5(8):738–47.
Worthington MA, Addington J, Bearden CE, Cadenhead KS, Cornblatt BA, Keshavan M, et al. Individualized prediction of prodromal symptom remission for youth at clinical high risk for psychosis. Schizophr Bull. 2022;48(2):395–404.
Sanfelici R, Dwyer DB, Antonucci LA, Koutsouleris N. Individualized diagnostic and prognostic models for patients with psychosis risk syndromes: a meta-analytic view on the state of the art. Biol Psychiatry. 2020;88(4):349–60.
Devoe DJ, Farris MS, Townes P, Addington J. Attenuated psychotic symptom interventions in youth at risk of psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2019;13(1):3–17.
Mei C, van der Gaag M, Nelson B, Smit F, Yuen HP, Berger M, et al. Preventive interventions for individuals at ultra high risk for psychosis: an updated and extended meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2021;86:102005.
Kuharic DB, Kekin I, Hew J, Kuzman MR, Puljak L. Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019(11).
Devoe DJ, Farris MS, Townes P, Addington J. Interventions and transition in youth at risk of psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analyses. J Clin Psychiatry. 2020;81(3).
Gupta T, Mittal VA. Advances in clinical staging, early intervention, and the prevention of psychosis. F1000Res. 2019;8:F1000-Faculty Rev-2027.
Amminger GP, Schafer MR, Schlogelhofer M, Klier CM, McGorry PD. Longer-term outcome in the prevention of psychotic disorders by the Vienna omega-3 study. Nat Commun. 2015;6:7934.
McGorry PD, Nelson B, Markulev C, Yuen HP, Schafer MR, Mossaheb N, et al. Effect of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in young people at ultrahigh risk for psychotic disorders: the NEURAPRO randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiat. 2017;74(1):19–27.
Zhang T, Wang J, Xu L, Wei Y, Tang X, Hu Y, et al. Further evidence that antipsychotic medication does not prevent long-term psychosis in higher-risk individuals. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2022;272(4):591–602.
Fusar-Poli P, Davies C, Solmi M, Brondino N, De Micheli A, Kotlicka-Antczak M, et al. Preventive treatments for psychosis: umbrella review (just the evidence). Front Psych. 2019;10.
Brady LS, Larrauri CA, Committee ASS. Accelerating Medicines Partnership. World Psychiatry. 2023;22(1):42–3.
(NIMH). NIoMH. Accelerating Medicines Partnership program-Schizophrenia (AMP-SCZ). 2023. Available from: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/research-funded-by-nimh/research-initiatives/accelerating-medicines-partnershipr-program-schizophrenia-ampr-scz.
Gordon JA, Morris SE, Avenevoli S. A framework for integration of dimensional and diagnostic approaches to the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2022;242:98–101.
Cannon TD, Chung Y, He G, Sun D, Jacobson A, van Erp TG, et al. Progressive reduction in cortical thickness as psychosis develops: a multisite longitudinal neuroimaging study of youth at elevated clinical risk. Biol Psychiatry. 2015;77(2):147–57.
Hamilton HK, Woods SW, Roach BJ, Llerena K, McGlashan TH, Srihari VH, et al. Auditory and visual oddball stimulus processing deficits in schizophrenia and the psychosis risk syndrome: forecasting psychosis risk with P300. Schizophr Bull. 2018.
Addington J, Piskulic D, Liu L, Lockwood J, Cadenhead KS, Cannon TD, et al. Comorbid diagnoses for youth at clinical high risk of psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2017;190:90–5.
Fusar-Poli P, Borgwardt S, Bechdolf A, Addington J, Riecher-Rossler A, Schultze-Lutter F, et al. The psychosis high-risk state: a comprehensive state-of-the-art review. JAMA Psychiat. 2013;70(1):107–20.
Powers AR, Addington J, Perkins DO, Bearden CE, Cadenhead KS, Cannon TD, et al. Duration of the psychosis prodrome. Schizophr Res. 2020;216:443–9.
Beiser M, Erickson D, Fleming JA, Iacono WG. Establishing the onset of psychotic illness. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(9):1349–54.
Perkins D, Loohuis L, Barbee J, Ford J, Jeffries J, Addington J, et al. Polygenic risk score contribution to psychosis prediction in a target population of persons at clinical high-risk. Am J Psychiatry. In Press.
Chung Y, Allswede D, Addington J, Bearden CE, Cadenhead K, Cornblatt B, et al. Cortical abnormalities in youth at clinical high-risk for psychosis: findings from the NAPLS2 cohort. Neuroimage Clin. 2019;23:101862.
Perez VB, Woods SW, Roach BJ, Ford JM, McGlashan TH, Srihari VH, et al. Automatic auditory processing deficits in schizophrenia and clinical high-risk patients: forecasting psychosis risk with mismatch negativity. Biol Psychiatry. 2014;75(6):459–69.
Acknowledgements
The following grants to Dr. Cadenhead supported this work: MH123641 (R01), MH124639 (U01), MH105243 (R01), MH081944 (U01).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Caballero, N., Machiraju, S., Diomino, A. et al. Recent Updates on Predicting Conversion in Youth at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis. Curr Psychiatry Rep 25, 683–698 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-023-01456-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-023-01456-2