Advancements and Future Directions in Prevention Based on Evaluation for Individuals With Clinical High Risk of Psychosis: Insights From the SHARP Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: This review examines the evolution and future prospects of prevention based on evaluation (PBE) for individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) of psychosis, drawing insights from the SHARP (Shanghai At Risk for Psychosis) study. It aims to assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in preventing psychosis onset among CHR individuals. STUDY DESIGN: The review provides an overview of the developmental history of the SHARP study and its contributions to understanding the needs of CHR individuals. It explores the limitations of traditional antipsychotic approaches and introduces PBE as a promising framework for intervention. STUDY RESULTS: Three key interventions implemented by the SHARP team are discussed: nutritional supplementation based on niacin skin response blunting, precision transcranial magnetic stimulation targeting cognitive and brain functional abnormalities, and cognitive behavioral therapy for psychotic symptoms addressing symptomatology and impaired insight characteristics. Each intervention is evaluated within the context of PBE, emphasizing the potential for tailored approaches to CHR individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The review highlights the strengths and clinical applications of the discussed interventions, underscoring their potential to revolutionize preventive care for CHR individuals. It also provides insights into future directions for PBE in CHR populations, including efforts to expand evaluation techniques and enhance precision in interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".