↓ Skip to main content

Neurocognitive Indicators of Clinical High-Risk States for Psychosis: A Critical Review of the Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotoxicity Research, April 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Neurocognitive Indicators of Clinical High-Risk States for Psychosis: A Critical Review of the Evidence
Published in
Neurotoxicity Research, April 2010
DOI 10.1007/s12640-010-9191-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralf Pukrop, Joachim Klosterkötter

Abstract

The present review investigates the empirical evidence from cross-sectional and long-term follow-up studies on neurocognitive indicators of an increased risk for developing schizophrenia spectrum psychoses in clinically defined high-risk samples. First, the investigations at the Cologne center for early recognition and intervention are briefly summarized and then integrated within the available literature. Thirty-two studies with original data could be identified by extensive literature search. Cross-sectional investigations of neurocognitive baseline assessments in high-risk samples with unknown conversion status have produced rather inconsistent results. Nevertheless, most convincing evidence could be collected for abnormal functioning in processing speed measures (digit symbol coding, Trailmaking Test-B, Stroop Color Naming), the Continuous Performance Test, verbal working memory measures, verbal memory and learning, and verbal fluency, though negative findings have also been reported in every instance. Moreover, high-risk subjects were found to perform both at the schizophrenia performance level and at a close to normal level. Longitudinal follow-up assessments provided predictive evidence with regard to psychosis conversion for measures of processing speed and of verbal memory and learning. However, a substantial number of negative findings does not allow for straight-forward conclusions. Finally, some reasons for inconsistent findings are discussed critically speculating on demographic differences, reliability and sample sizes, and conceptual imprecision in communicating results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 67 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 17%
Neuroscience 6 9%
Unspecified 2 3%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 17 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2012.
All research outputs
#14,286,035
of 23,652,325 outputs
Outputs from Neurotoxicity Research
#481
of 892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,696
of 97,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotoxicity Research
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,652,325 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 97,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.