Incidence, Prevalence, and Stability of Remission in Individuals With Clinical High Risk for Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: While remission from clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis is a favorable outcome, it is not well characterized over time. Objective: To examine remission incidence, prevalence, and stability, and their association with demographic, clinical, medication, and cognitive variables, comparing 2 commonly used definitions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study examined data from individuals aged 12 to 30 years at CHR in the North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study 3, collected from 9 sites across the US from February 2015 to November 2018. Statistical analyses were conducted between January 2023 and May 2025. Exposure: CHR status using 2 definitions: (1) a symptoms-only definition based on the positive symptoms from the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms and (2) a symptoms-and-function definition based on positive symptoms and the modified Global Assessment of Functioning. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were remission incidence, prevalence, and stability for 7 follow-up visits over 2 years. Associations of remission with age, sex at birth, race, antipsychotic and antidepressant medication, history of trauma, and cognitive performance were determined using mixed-effects logistic regression. Results: The sample included 692 individuals (mean [SD] age, 18.7 [4.1] years; 319 female [46%]) at baseline, with 614 completing at least 1 follow-up. For the symptoms-only definition, 7% (95% CI, 5%-10%) met remission criteria after 2 months, 34% (95% CI, 31%-38%) met remission criteria at least once during the study, and 26% (95% CI, 22%-29%) met criteria at their last visit. The symptoms-and-function definition was associated with a lower remission incidence and prevalence, with 4% (95%CI, 2%-5%) meeting remission criteria after 2 months, 21% (95% CI, 18%-24%) meeting criteria at least once, and 15% (95% CI, 13%-18%) meeting criteria at their last visit. Under the symptoms-only definition, 83 of 153 individuals at CHR with at least 1 follow-up after remission (54%; 95% CI, 46%-62%) were stable remitters. Under the symptoms-and-function definition, 43 of 91 individuals (47%; 95% CI, 37%-58%) were stable remitters. The chance of staying in remission rose drastically once a person had more than 1 previous recorded remission visit. Higher functioning was associated with higher likelihood of remission (current score for symptoms only: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; current score for symptoms and function: OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14). More symptoms at baseline was associated with a lower likelihood of remission (general symptoms for symptoms only: OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.84; general symptoms for symptoms and function: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that CHR status is a dynamic state and that vulnerability can persist even after functional remission. Hence, continued follow-up and facilitated reengagement with clinical services after remission are essential.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".