Neuropsychological Performance Among Individuals at Clinical High-Risk for Psychosis vs Putatively Low-Risk Peers With Other Psychopathology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zachary B. Millman*, Caroline Roemer, Teresa Vargas, Jason Schiffman, Vijay A. Mittal, James M. Gold

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

20 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background and Hypothesis: Youth at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis present with neuropsychological impairments relative to healthy controls (HC), but whether these impairments are distinguishable from those seen among putatively lower risk peers with other psychopathology remains unknown. We hypothesized that any excess impairment among CHR cohorts beyond that seen in other clinical groups is minimal and accounted for by the proportion who transition to psychosis (CHR-T). Study Design: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing cognitive performance among CHR youth to clinical comparators (CC) who either sought mental health services but did not meet CHR criteria or presented with verified nonpsychotic psychopathology. Study Results: Twenty-one studies were included representing nearly 4000 participants. Individuals at CHR showed substantial cognitive impairments relative to HC (eg, global cognition: g = −0.48 [−0.60, −0.34]), but minimal impairments relative to CC (eg, global cognition: g = −0.13 [−0.20, −0.06]). Any excess impairment among CHR was almost entirely attributable to CHR-T; impairment among youth at CHR without transition (CHR-NT) was typically indistinguishable from CC (eg, global cognition, CHR-T: g = −0.42 [−0.64, −0.19], CHR-NT: g = −0.09 [−0.18, 0.00]; processing speed, CHR-T: g = −0.59 [−0.82, −0.37], CHR-NT: g = −0.12 [−0.25, 0.07]; working memory, CHR-T: g = −0.42 [−0.62, −0.22], CHR-NT: g = −0.03 [−0.14, 0.08]). Conclusions: Neurocognitive impairment in CHR cohorts should be interpreted cautiously when psychosis or even CHR status is the specific clinical syndrome of interest as these impairments most likely represent a transdiagnostic vs psychosis-specific vulnerability.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)999-1010
Number of pages12
JournalSchizophrenia bulletin
Volume48
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2022

Funding

This work was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH016259 to Z.B.M. and R01MH120090 to J.M.G.), the Andrew P. Merrill Memorial Research Fellowship (to Z.B.M.), and the Joseph and Susan Gatto Award for Excellence in Imaging, Drug Abuse, and Psychiatric Research (to Z.B.M.). We thank the authors who produced the original research we review in this meta-analysis and the participants who made this research possible. The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study.

Keywords

  • clinical staging
  • developmental psychopathology
  • neurocognitive
  • schizophrenia
  • transdiagnostic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Neuropsychological Performance Among Individuals at Clinical High-Risk for Psychosis vs Putatively Low-Risk Peers With Other Psychopathology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this