TY - JOUR
T1 - Psychosis Polyrisk Score and Polygenic Risk Score to Improve Detection and Prognosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis
T2 - Model Development and Internal Validation
AU - Oliver, Dominic
AU - Arribas, Maite
AU - Logeswaran, Yanakan
AU - Fusar-Poli, Laura
AU - Kempton, Matthew J.
AU - Hedges, Emily P.
AU - Albinaña, Clara
AU - Vassos, Evangelos
AU - Sariaslan, Amir
AU - Pettersson-Yeo, William
AU - Valmaggia, Lucia
AU - van der Gaag, Mark
AU - de Haan, Lieuwe
AU - Nelson, Barnaby
AU - McGorry, Patrick
AU - Riecher-Rössler, Anita
AU - Studerus, Erich
AU - Bressan, Rodrigo
AU - Barrantes-Vidal, Neus
AU - Krebs, Marie Odile
AU - Nordentoft, Merete
AU - Ruhrmann, Stephan
AU - Sachs, Gabriele
AU - Rutten, Bart
AU - van Os, Jim
AU - Stahl, Daniel
AU - McGuire, Philip
AU - Fusar-Poli, Paolo
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2026. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
PY - 2026/9
Y1 - 2026/9
N2 - Background and Hypothesis: Psychosis prevention can be supported by tools that facilitate the early detection of individuals at clinical high risk (CHR-P) and predicting their clinical outcomes. We aimed to use clinical, genetic, and environmental data to: (1) predict case–control status as a proof-of-concept for CHR-P detection, and (2) predict transition to psychosis. Study Design: We used data from the European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene–Environment Interactions: a multicenter cohort study comprising 344 CHR-P individuals and 67 healthy controls. To predict CHR-P status, we used environmental (Psychosis Polyrisk Score [PPS]) and genetic (polygenic risk score for schizophrenia [PRS]) measures with logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF). To predict transition to psychosis, we used clinical, environmental, and genetic measures with Cox proportional hazards model and random survival forest. Primary outcomes were discrimination (C-index) and calibration (intercept and slope) in repeated nested cross-validation. Clinical utility was assessed with decision curve analysis. Study Results: For detection of CHR-P, both PPS (LR:C = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.87-0.94, intercept = 1.46, slope = 0.73; RF:C = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, intercept = −0.53, slope = 0.42) and PPS + PRS (LR:C = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.85-0.92, intercept = 1.45, slope = 0.73; RF:C = 0.78, 95% CI, 0.65-0.89, intercept = −0.24, slope = 0.44) had excellent discrimination performance, whereas PRS performed substantially worse (LR:C = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.52-0.67, intercept = 1.63, slope = 0.81; RF:C = 0.57, 95% CI, 0.41-0.72, intercept = −0.84, slope = 0.10). All models over-estimated risk in individuals with low observed risk. Prognosis model performance was poor (C ≤ 0.65). Conclusions: CHR-P detection may be improved by using the PPS, though evidence is needed from more representative detection settings. However, we did not find evidence that baseline clinical, environmental and/or genetic data enhanced the prediction of psychosis onset.
AB - Background and Hypothesis: Psychosis prevention can be supported by tools that facilitate the early detection of individuals at clinical high risk (CHR-P) and predicting their clinical outcomes. We aimed to use clinical, genetic, and environmental data to: (1) predict case–control status as a proof-of-concept for CHR-P detection, and (2) predict transition to psychosis. Study Design: We used data from the European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks Studying Gene–Environment Interactions: a multicenter cohort study comprising 344 CHR-P individuals and 67 healthy controls. To predict CHR-P status, we used environmental (Psychosis Polyrisk Score [PPS]) and genetic (polygenic risk score for schizophrenia [PRS]) measures with logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF). To predict transition to psychosis, we used clinical, environmental, and genetic measures with Cox proportional hazards model and random survival forest. Primary outcomes were discrimination (C-index) and calibration (intercept and slope) in repeated nested cross-validation. Clinical utility was assessed with decision curve analysis. Study Results: For detection of CHR-P, both PPS (LR:C = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.87-0.94, intercept = 1.46, slope = 0.73; RF:C = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, intercept = −0.53, slope = 0.42) and PPS + PRS (LR:C = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.85-0.92, intercept = 1.45, slope = 0.73; RF:C = 0.78, 95% CI, 0.65-0.89, intercept = −0.24, slope = 0.44) had excellent discrimination performance, whereas PRS performed substantially worse (LR:C = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.52-0.67, intercept = 1.63, slope = 0.81; RF:C = 0.57, 95% CI, 0.41-0.72, intercept = −0.84, slope = 0.10). All models over-estimated risk in individuals with low observed risk. Prognosis model performance was poor (C ≤ 0.65). Conclusions: CHR-P detection may be improved by using the PPS, though evidence is needed from more representative detection settings. However, we did not find evidence that baseline clinical, environmental and/or genetic data enhanced the prediction of psychosis onset.
KW - detection
KW - environment
KW - genetics
KW - prevention
KW - prognosis
KW - psychosis
KW - risk factors
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105048167347
U2 - 10.1093/schbul/sbag088
DO - 10.1093/schbul/sbag088
M3 - Article
C2 - 42636465
AN - SCOPUS:105048167347
SN - 0586-7614
VL - 52
JO - Schizophrenia bulletin
JF - Schizophrenia bulletin
IS - 5
M1 - sbag088
ER -