On the Proportion of Patients Who Experience a Prodrome Prior to Psychosis Onset - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Preventing or delaying the onset of psychosis requires identification of those at risk for developing psychosis. For predictive purposes, the prodrome – a constellation of symptoms which may occur before the onset of psychosis – has been increasingly recognized as having utility. However, it is unclear what proportion of patients are expected to experience a prodrome or how this varies according to the definition used. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of patients with psychosis with the objective of determining the proportion of patients who experienced a prodrome prior to psychosis onset. Inclusion criteria included a consistent prodrome definition and reporting the proportion of patients who experienced a prodrome. We excluded studies of only patients with a prodrome or solely substance-induced psychosis, qualitative studies without prevalence data, conference abstracts, and case reports/case series. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycBooks (Ovid), ProQuest Dissertation & Thesis, on March 3, 2021. Studies were assessed for quality using the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Narrative synthesis and proportion meta-analysis were used to estimate prodrome prevalence. I 2 and predictive interval were used to assess heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were used to probe sources of heterogeneity. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021239797). RESULTS Seventy-one articles were included, representing 13,774 patients. Studies varied significantly in terms of methodology and prodrome definition used. The random effects proportion meta-analysis estimate for prodrome prevalence was 78.3% (95% CI= 72.8-83.2); heterogeneity was high (I 2 97.98% [95% CI= 97.71-98.22]); and the prediction interval was wide (95% PI= 0.411-0.936). There were no meaningful differences in prevalence between grouped prodrome definitions, and subgroup analyses failed to reveal a consistent source of heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS This is the first meta-analysis on the prevalence of a prodrome prior to the onset of first episode psychosis. The majority of patients (78.3%) were found to experience a prodrome prior to psychosis onset. However, findings are highly heterogenous across study and no definitive source of heterogeneity was found. As most studies were retrospective in nature, recall bias likely affects these results. While the large majority of patients with psychosis experience a prodrome in some form, it is unclear if the remainder of patients experience no prodrome, or if ascertainment methods employed in the studies were not sensitive to their experiences. Given widespread investment in indicated prevention of psychosis through prospective identification and intervention during the prodrome, a resolution of this question as well as a consensus definition of the prodrome is much needed in order to effectively direct services, and may be accomplished through novel, densely sampled prospective cohort studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".