[Skip to Navigation]
Editorial
June 16, 2021

Enhancing Prediction of Psychosis Risk With Cognitive Measures: How Do We Get to There From Here?

Author Affiliations
  • 1Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
  • 2Center of Excellence in Psychotic Disorders, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts
  • 3Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 4Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Branch, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland
JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78(8):827-828. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.0847

The article by Catalan and colleagues1 provides an updated meta-analysis of neuropsychological impairment in individuals considered to be at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P). The authors summarize the extensive literature addressing the CHR-P impairments compared with healthy controls, as well as the smaller literature contrasting impairments seen in individuals at CHR-P who will later develop full psychosis with those who do not. As suggested by earlier reviews,2 (1) individuals at CHR-P produce heterogeneous neuropsychological findings yet demonstrate impairments compared with healthy controls across nearly all measured abilities at broadly similar levels of impairment (around 0.5 SD); (2) people who later develop full psychosis evidence greater levels of impairment, again across nearly all measured abilities, compared with those who do not develop full psychosis (around 0.3 SD); and (3) the heterogeneity, nonspecificity, and small to medium effect sizes of neuropsychological findings in individuals at CHR-P appear to limit traditional neuropsychological testing to a supporting role both in the identification of the CHR-P state and in the critical task of predicting which individuals at CHR-P will actually progress to psychosis. Given the consistency of these findings, the publication of this comprehensive meta-analysis offers a moment to reflect on this body of work and its clinical utility and to consider alternative approaches to the use of cognitive measures that may enhance their value in CHR-P research.

Add or change institution
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    ×