Skip to main content
. 2026 Jan 20;16(1):112. doi: 10.3390/brainsci16010112
Category Variables Extracted
Study Identification and Design
  • First author and publication year

  • Country and geographic location

  • Study design (prospective cohort, retrospective cohort)

  • Single-site versus multi-site study

  • Funding source and conflicts of interest

Participant Characteristics
  • Total sample size (UHR participants)

  • Number of converters and non-converters

  • Conversion rate (percentage)

  • Age: mean, standard deviation, and range

  • Sex distribution (percentage male/female)

  • Ethnicity and racial composition

  • UHR criteria used (CAARMS, SIPS/SOPS, Basel, other)

  • UHR subtype distribution (APS, BLIPS, GRD)

  • Baseline symptom severity (SIPS, PANSS, CAARMS scores)

  • Baseline functioning (GAF, SOFAS scores)

  • Antipsychotic medication status at baseline (%, dosage)

  • Cannabis use (% users, frequency, lifetime exposure)

  • Other substance use

  • Psychiatric comorbidities (depression, anxiety, PTSD)

  • Family history of psychosis

  • Educational level

Neuroimaging Assessment Details
  • Scanner manufacturer and model

  • Magnetic field strength (1.5T, 3T, other)

  • Imaging modality (sMRI, fMRI, DTI, MRS, multimodal)

  • Structural MRI sequence parameters (TR, TE, voxel size, slice thickness)

  • Functional MRI paradigm (task-based: specific task; resting-state: duration)

  • DTI sequence parameters (number of directions, b-values)

  • MRS voxel location, size, and metabolites measured

  • Brain regions assessed (specific regions or whole-brain)

  • Analysis approach (ROI, VBM, surface-based, tract-based, connectivity)

  • Software used for image processing and analysis

  • Quality control procedures

  • Head motion assessment and correction methods

  • Artifact detection and exclusion criteria

Follow-up and Outcome Assessment
  • Follow-up duration (months or years)

  • Conversion assessment method and criteria (DSM-IV/5, ICD-10/11)

  • Assessment instruments used (SCID, CAARMS, SIPS)

  • Assessor training and inter-rater reliability

  • Blinding of assessors to neuroimaging results

  • Follow-up assessment schedule and frequency

  • Time to conversion for converters

  • Specific psychotic disorder diagnoses (schizophrenia, schizoaffective, brief psychotic, other)

  • Loss to follow-up (number and percentage)

  • Reasons for attrition

Results and Effect Sizes
  • Neuroimaging measures: means and standard deviations for converters and non-converters

  • Statistical test results (t-tests, F-tests, Z-scores, p-values)

  • Effect sizes: Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g, partial eta-squared, other

  • Confidence intervals for effect sizes

  • Classification accuracy metrics: sensitivity, specificity

  • Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV)

  • Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC)

  • Likelihood ratios (positive and negative)

  • Odds ratios and hazard ratios for conversion

  • Multivariable model results (beta coefficients, p-values)

  • Machine learning classification performance (accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score)

  • Cross-validation results

  • Feature importance or weights from machine learning models

  • Subgroup analyses (by sex, age, UHR subtype, medication status)

Statistical Methods and Confounders
  • Statistical tests used

  • Multiple comparison correction methods (FWE, FDR, Bonferroni, other)

  • Covariates included in analyses:
    • -
      Age correction
    • -
      Sex as covariate
    • -
      Total intracranial volume correction
    • -
      Education level adjustment
    • -
      Baseline symptom severity adjustment
    • -
      Medication exposure correction
    • -
      Cannabis use adjustment
    • -
      Head motion parameters (for fMRI/DTI)
  • Handling of missing data

  • Power calculations and sample size justification

  • Statistical software used

Note: All extracted data were entered into a standardized spreadsheet and double-checked for accuracy. Any discrepancies between reviewers were discussed and resolved by re-examining the original source publication. Study authors were contacted when data were missing or unclear, with two reminder emails sent at two-week intervals if no response was received to the initial contact.