Twenty percent of individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) develop the disorder within 2 years. Extensive research has explored the factors that differentiate those who develop psychosis and those who do not, but the results are conflicting. The current systematic review and meta-analysis comprehensively addresses the consistency and magnitude of evidence for non-purely genetic risk and protective factors associated with the risk of developing psychosis in CHR-P individuals. Random effects meta-analyses, standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) were used, in combination with an established stratification of evidence that assesses the association of each factor and the onset of psychotic disorders (from class I, convincing evidence to class IV weak evidence), while controlling for several types of biases. A total of 128 original controlled studies relating to 26 factors were retrieved. No factors showed class I-convincing evidence. Two further factors were associated with class II-highly suggestive evidence: attenuated positive psychotic symptoms (SMD = 0.348, 95% CI: 0.280, 0.415) and global functioning (SMD = −0.291, 95% CI: −0.370, −0.211). There was class III-suggestive evidence for negative psychotic symptoms (SMD = 0.393, 95% CI: 0.317, 0.469). There was either class IV-weak or no evidence for all other factors. Our findings suggest that despite the large number of putative risk factors investigated in the literature, only attenuated positive psychotic symptoms, global functioning, and negative psychotic symptoms show suggestive evidence or greater for association with transition to psychosis. The current findings may inform the refinement of clinical prediction models and precision medicine in this field.

No abstract

If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

IntroductionThe Aberrant Salience Inventory (ASI) is a useful tool to measure salience abnormalities among the general population. There is strong clinical and scientific evidence that salience alteration is linked to psychosis. To the present day, no meta‐analysis evaluating ASI's psychometric properties and screening potential has been published.Materials and MethodsPubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase were searched using terms including “psychosis,” “schizophrenia,” and “Aberrant Salience Inventory.” Observational and experimental studies employing ASI on populations of non‐psychotic controls and patients with psychosis were included. ASI scores and other demographic measures (age, gender, ethnicity) were extracted as outcomes. Individual patients' data (IPD) were collected. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the IPD.ResultsEight articles were finally included in the meta‐analysis. ASI scores differ significantly between psychotic and non‐psychotic populations; a novel three‐factor model is proposed regarding subscales structure. Theoretical positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) were calculated and presented together with different cutoff points depending on preselected specific populations of interest.DiscussionPPV and NPV values reached levels adequate for ASI to be considered a viable screening tool for psychosis. The factor analysis highlights the presence of a novel subscale that was named “Unveiling experiences.” Implications regarding the meaning of the new factor structure are discussed, as well as ASI's potential as a screening tool.

(1) Background: The Embodied Sense-of-Self Scale (ESSS) is the only validated measure for self-assessing embodiment abnormalities, which differentiate people with anomalous embodied self-representations such as schizophrenic patients from controls. The aim of the current study was to translate the ESSS from English to Italian and to examine its factor structure, reliability, and validity in the Italian context. (2) Methods: We tested the fit of the original three-factor structure (agency, ownership, and narrative identity) across a community sample (N = 269) and the reliability as well as the convergent and divergent validity of the ESSS. (3) Results: The three-factor structure of the ESSS was confirmed. However, three different factors have emerged from our analysis (self-recognition, self-consistence, and self-awareness). Higher internal consistency of the ESSS was obtained by removing six items that seemed problematic. The three ESSS scales show highly intercorrelated constructs. The measure was reliable and positively correlated with schizotypy (via the Perceptual Aberration Scale) and aberrant salience (via the Aberrant Salience Inventory), and negatively correlated with empathy (via the Italian Short Empathy Quotient scale), generalized self-efficacy (via the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale), and social self-efficacy (via the Perceived Social Self-Efficacy Scale). (4) Conclusions: The 19-item Italian version of the ESSS is a suitable measure with which to assess embodiment abnormalities in Italian samples.

No abstract