Skip to main content
Download PDF

Value of P300 amplitude in the diagnosis of untreated first-episode schizophrenia and psychosis risk syndrome in children and adolescents

BMC Psychiatry volume 23, Article number: 743 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Identifying the characteristic neurobiological changes of early psychosis is helpful for early clinical diagnosis. However, previous studies on the brain electrophysiology of children and adolescents with psychosis are rare.

Methods

This study compared P300 amplitude at multiple electrodes between children and adolescents with first-episode schizophrenia (FES, n = 48), children and adolescents with psychosis risk syndrome (PRS, n = 24), and healthy controls (HC, n = 30). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to test the ability of P300 amplitude to distinguish FES, PRS and HC individuals.

Results

The P300 amplitude in the FES group were significantly lower than those in the HC at the Cz, Pz, and Oz electrodes. The P300 amplitude was also significantly lower in the prodromal group than in the HC at the Pz and Oz electrodes. ROC curve analysis showed that at the Pz electrode, the P300 amplitude evoked by the target and standard stimulus showed high sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve value for distinguishing FES from HC individuals.

Conclusions

This study found early visual P300 deficits in children and adolescents with FES and PRS, with the exclusion of possible influence of medication and chronic medical conditions, suggesting the value of P300 amplitude for the identification of early psychosis.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Schizophrenia is a serious mental disease. Clinical studies have shown that the mean age at the first hospital visit or first admission of patients with schizophrenia is between 25 and 35 years [1, 2]. The etiology of the disease remains unclear, and this illness is usually accompanied by perception, thinking, and emotion impairments, reduced motivation, and neurobiological changes [3]. Schizophrenia imposes a huge burden on the patients, their families, and society due to its early age of onset, low remission rates, and high disability rates. Clinically, childhood- and adolescence-onset schizophrenia is often characterized by atypical or even highly implicit cognitive impairment, personality changes, and uncoordinated emotional and behavioral problems [4]. The prognosis of these patients is often poorer than that of adults [5], and early identification and intervention can improve the prognosis. Identifying the specific neurobiological changes of schizophrenia in the early stages may facilitate early clinical identification due to its insidious onset and atypical symptoms.

The prodromal phase of psychosis is characterized by attenuated psychotic symptoms and considerable deterioration of psychosocial functioning, and this is a critical stage due to its proneness to developing into schizophrenia [6, 7]. The prodromal phase of psychosis is usually referred to as the psychosis risk syndrome (PRS) [8], which is also known as “clinically high risk” and “ultra-high risk” [9]. A systematic review found that among children and adolescents with PRS, 17%-20% developed psychosis in one year of follow-up, whereas 23% developed psychosis in six years of follow-up, and 40% remained in the prodromal phase [10]; this has limited the justification for early use of antipsychotics. New evidence suggested that early identification and targeted treatment of patients with PRS can reduce the risk of developing psychosis [11]. Recent studies have considered using neurobiomarkers to predict PRS, provide early targeted intervention, and help elucidate the pathogenesis of schizophrenia [12, 13].

Event-related potential (ERP) is a special component of electroencephalogram evoked by a certain stimulus. Changes in ERP reflect the cognitive activities in a certain mental state. P300 is an event-related positive potential recorded on the scalp, and the P300 amplitude is usually evoked by the Oddball paradigm. The highest value of P300 is usually recorded from the central part of the scalp and the parietal lobe and is usually 300–1000 ms after stimulation [14]. At present, the mainstream view is that the P300 amplitude reflects attention resource allocation [15], sustained attention [16], staged attention shift [17, 18], and working memory update of the stimulus [19,20,21,22,23].

Deficits of P300 have been considered as an endophenotype of schizophrenia and used to measure neurobiological vulnerability in schizophrenia [24]. Previous studies have found reduced auditory and visual P300 amplitude in patients with first-episode schizophrenia (FES) [25,26,27,28,29,30]. Reduced auditory and visual P300 amplitude was also reported in individuals with PRS [28, 31, 32], suggesting that P300 abnormalities may occur before the full onset of psychosis. Longitudinal studies have found that after treatment in patients with schizophrenia, despite significant improvement in clinical symptoms, the decrease in auditory P300 amplitude is stable [33, 34], while the visual P300 amplitude increases with clinical improvement [35], so it is suggested that auditory P300 deficits appear to be more sensitive to schizophrenic traits, and visual P300 deficits may be more sensitive to the clinical state of schizophrenia [36, 37]. A study on P300 among individuals with PRS (aged 12.0-26.6 years) showed that after adjustment for the effect of normal age-related brain maturity on P300, younger people with PRS were more likely to have lower P300 amplitudes compared to older people with PRS, suggesting that pathological changes in P300 may be more pronounced in younger people with PRS before the typical age/maturity-related decline in P300 amplitude(P300 amplitudes increase in early development and decrease with further aging after puberty [38]). Therefore, the study of younger patients with psychosis may help to exclude the influence of changes in age/maturity-related visual P300 amplitude on early identification of neuroelectrophysiological changes in psychosis.

The diagnosis of a mental illness relies on the patient’s presentations; however, the consistency of diagnoses can be affected by individual differences, situations (e.g., time of onset and duration of the disease), information obtained, and observation of clinicians [39, 40]. Furthermore, some algorithms have been developed based on clinical and cognitive data to predict future development to schizophrenia among individuals with PRS, but their accuracy is still limited [41,42,43]. Therefore, recent studies have focused on identifying electrophysiological biomarkers of PRS that are associated with future development into schizophrenia among individuals with PRS [11, 44, 45].

Although P300 may play an important role in the formulation of algorithms to facilitate clinical staging of psychotic disorders [12], the extent to which visual P300 can distinguish between FES and PRS, FES and HC, and PRS and HC still needs to be further examined. Moreover, although some studies on P300 involved children and adolescents with FES and PRS, there is still a lack of relevant studies targeting this population; besides, most of the existing studies could not rule out the effect of medications. Therefore, the present study aims to examine the characteristics of the P300 amplitude among untreated children and adolescents with FES and PRS and to explore the identification value of P300 amplitude on FES and PRS in this population, thereby providing a potential neuroelectrophysiological basis for further explanation of the mechanism of early-onset schizophrenia.

Methods

Participants

Children and adolescents with FES (n = 48) and PRS (n = 24) aged 10–17 were recruited from psychiatric outpatient clinics and wards from August 2018 to April 2021, and HC (n = 30) were recruited through online advertisement during the same period. Patients with FES were diagnosed by two child psychiatrists according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition) [46]. Patients with PRS were diagnosed by the Structured Interview Clinical Interview Diagnosis for Psychosis-risk Syndromes, and their conditions included attenuated psychotic symptoms, brief limited intermittent psychotic episode, genetic risk, and deterioration syndrome [47, 48]. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) [49] was used to assess the severity of psychiatric symptoms. Exclusion criteria included comorbidities of other mental and neurological disorders, severe physical illness, and other conditions affecting the participants’ cooperation. Healthy children and adolescents with no mental illness, no neurological disease or other serious physical disease, and no family history of mental disorders were included, based on the interview by two child psychiatrists according to Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia: Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL) [50]. All the subjects were right-handed, had normal visual acuity or corrected visual acuity, and had and IQ of ≥ 70 according to Wechsler Child [51]/Adult Intelligence Scale [52]. None of the subjects received any antipsychotic medication before the above evaluation. This clinical study was conducted in accordance with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki and was strictly reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. All the subjects and their guardians have provided informed consent for the study.

P300 paradigms

This experiment used the double-choose visual Oddball experimental paradigm. E-Prime 2.0 software (version 2.0, pstnet.com/products/e-prime/) was used to display, stimulate, and record data. Two random letters in the middle of the computer screen were the standard stimuli “W”, which appeared frequently (80%), and the target stimuli “M” appeared less frequently (20%). The experiment was divided into three blocks: one practice block and two formal blocks with a total of 265 trials. The first block was the practice block, including 15 trials; only participants with an accuracy rate of 95% or above could enter the formal experiment blocks. Each of the formal blocks was composed of 25 “M”s and 100 “W”s. Subjects were given sufficient time for a break between blocks. A random blank screen of 500–1500 ms was presented first, followed by a fixation point “+” in the middle of the screen to remind the subjects to pay attention, which lasted for 500 ms; this is followed by the “M” or “W” stimuli, which lasted for 2000 ms. Then, a random blank screen of 500–1500 ms appeared again, prompting the completion of the test. The participants were asked to respond to standard stimuli “W” and target stimuli “M” with an F/J button.

EEG acquisition and preprocessing

Data acquisition

The experiment was conducted in a soundproof EEG room with appropriate temperature, with participants sitting in front of a computer monitor. German Brain Products 64-channel EEG equipment was used to record and collect the EEG data in task state, and the electrodes were placed in accordance with the position of the international 10–20 extended electrode system. The resistance of all electrodes was reduced to less than 5 KΩ. The electrode for collecting the vertical eye movement was fixed at 1 cm below the right eye. Reference electrodes were placed on the Cz electrode, and the sampling rate was 5000 Hz.

Preprocessing and ERP recording

MATLAB 2013b (MathWorks, Natick, MA, United States) was used for the analysis of EEG data, and EEGLAB (http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/) tool kit was used for EEG data preprocessing. The test data were imported in batches. The sampling rate was reduced to 500 Hz. Bandpass filtering was performed from 0.1 to 30 Hz, and notch filtering was performed from 48 to 52 Hz. After eliminating false responses, the test was segmented at 500 ms before the presentation of the stimuli and at 800 ms after the stimulation, and baseline correction was made at 200 ms before the presentation of stimuli. The unusable segments of the EEG data were manually eliminated, and the noisy electrodes were interpolated. Independent component analysis was used to eliminate interferences such as blinking, head movement, and power frequency interference. TP9/TP10 in the posterior mastoid process of both sides were used as reference electrodes. Segments with amplitude outside the range of -100µV to + 100µV were removed. The piecewise data of the two stimuli were superimposed and averaged to obtain the ERP waveform. The amplitude of P300 wave was defined as the average wave amplitude between 400 and 500 ms. The midline electrodes (Fz, Cz, Pz, Oz) with the most significant P300 amplitude were selected for the study.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, United States). Data were presented using mean ± standard deviation and median (third quartile, first quartile). Inter-group comparison of gender was performed using Pearson Chi-square test, and other demographic data that did not conform to normal distribution were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. As age was not matched among the three groups, it was controlled as a covariate in the subsequent analyses. The Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used to examine the inter-group differences in P300 amplitude evoked by the target and the standard stimulus at four electrodes (Fz, Cz, Pz, and Oz). Bonferroni correction was adopted for factors with more than two levels. The ROC function in pROC package [53] (R version 4.1.1) was used to test the ability of P300 amplitude to distinguish between FES, PRS, and HC. Accordingly, the corresponding receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, cut-off value (cut-off value was used to distinguish between two groups of subjects, and the best cut-off value was selected using Youden’s J statistic [54]), and area under the curve (AUC) were obtained for all the groups. Benjamini & Hochberg method was used for the correction of post-hoc multiple comparisons.

Results

Demographic and clinical data

The Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test showed significant difference in the mean age between the FES, PRS, and HC groups (15.061 ± 1.695 vs. 13.951 ± 1.973 vs. 12.360 ± 2.357 years, respectively, P < 0.001). Pearson Chi-square test showed no significant difference in gender between the three groups (P = 0.06), with the male/female ratios being 19/29, 11/13, and 14/16, respectively. The duration of FES and PRS was 4 (7.75–2.25) and 4 (8.00–2.00) months, respectively. Demographic characteristics and PANSS scores of the FES, PRS, and HC groups are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 General demographic data and clinical scales of the groups of FES, PRS, and HC.
Full size table

P300 amplitude

The comparison of P300 amplitude evoked by the target stimulus showed the following results: at the Fz electrode, no significant difference was found between groups (P > 0.05); at the Cz electrode, the P300 amplitude was significantly different between groups (H = 16.49, P < 0.001). Post-hoc test showed that the P300 amplitude of the FES group (6.952 ± 6.088 µV) was significantly lower than that of the PRS group (11.699 ± 7.449 µV) and HC (13.951 ± 7.759 µV), but no significant difference was found between the PRS group and HC (P = 0.36), as shown in Fig. 1(a). At the Pz electrode, the P300 amplitude was significantly different between groups (H = 26.37, P < 0.0001). Post-hoc test showed that the amplitude of the FES group (9.638 ± 6.361 µV) was significantly lower than that of the PRS group (14.088 ± 6.380 µV) and HC (18.430 ± 7.475 µV), and the amplitude of the PRS group was also significantly lower than that of HC (P = 0.035), as shown in Fig. 1(b). At the Oz electrode, the P300 amplitude showed significant difference between groups (H = 14.21, P < 0.001). Post-hoc test showed that the amplitude of the FES group (3.339 ± 3.538 µV) and PRS group (3.080 ± 4.354 µV) was significantly lower than that of HC (7.159 ± 5.109 µV), but no significant difference was found between the FES group and the PRS group (P = 0.75), as shown in Fig. 1(c).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Note: Group differences in P300 amplitude evoked by target stimulus at different electrodes. (a) Cz electrode, (b) Pz electrode, (c) Oz electrode. *: p < 0.05; **<p < 0.01; ***<p < 0.001; ****<p < 0.0001. FES, first-episode schizophrenia; PRS, psychosis risk syndrome; HC, healthy controls

Full size image

The comparison of P300 amplitude evoked by normal stimulus showed the following results: at the Fz electrode, no significant difference was found between groups (P > 0.05). At the Cz electrode, the P300 amplitude was significantly different between groups (H = 8.12, P = 0.017). Post-hoc test showed that the amplitude of the FES group (2.967 ± 3.717 µV) was significantly lower than that of the PRS group (5.538 ± 4.712 µV) and HC (6.006 ± 5.533 µV), and no significant difference was found between the PRS group and HC (P = 0.90), as shown in Fig. 2(a). At the Pz electrode, the amplitude of P300 was significantly different between groups (H = 24.40, P < 0.0001). Post-hoc test showed that the amplitude of the FES group (4.511 ± 3.850 µV) was significantly lower than that of the PRS group (7.185 ± 4.556 µV) and HC (8.972 ± 5.046 µV), but no significant difference was found between the PRS group and HC (P = 0.20), as shown in Fig. 2(b). At the Oz electrode, the P300 amplitude was significantly different between groups (H = 18.49, P < 0.0001). Post-hoc test showed that the amplitude of the FES group (1.125 ± 2.653 µV) and PRS group (2.053 ± 2.902 µV) was significantly lower than that of HC (4.444 ± 3.434 µV), but no significant difference was found between the FES group and the PRS group (P = 0.41), as shown in Fig. 2(c).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Note: Group differences in P300 amplitude evoked by standard stimulus at different electrodes. (a) Cz electrode, (b) Pz electrode, (c) Oz electrode. *: p < 0.05; **<p < 0.01; ***<p < 0.001; ****<p < 0.0001. FES, first-episode schizophrenia; PRS, psychosis risk syndrome; HC, healthy controls

Full size image

Supplementary Figure A.1, Figure A.2, and Figure A.3 showed the ERP grand averages evoked by the standard and target stimuli at different electrodes (Cz, Pz, and Oz respectively) for all the three groups. Supplementary figure B showed the topographic map of P300 for each group.

ROC analysis

At the Pz electrode, the P300 amplitude evoked by the target stimulus and standard stimulus showed high sensitivity (0.97, 0.73), specificity (0.56, 0.83), accuracy (0.72, 0.79), and AUC value (0.83, 0.82) for distinguishing FES from HC. All the results are presented in Tables 2 and 3; Fig. 3, and Fig. 4.

Table 2 Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, cut-off value, and AUC value corresponding to ROC curve (P300 amplitude evoked by target stimulus)
Full size table
Table 3 Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, cut-off value, and AUC value corresponding to ROC curve (P300 amplitude evoked by standard stimulus)
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Note: ROC curves of P300 amplitude evoked by target stimulus at different electrodes. Slashes indicate random levels. (a) Cz electrode, (b) Pz electrode, (c) Oz electrode. FES, first-episode schizophrenia; PRS, psychosis risk syndrome; HC, healthy controls

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Note: ROC curves of P300 amplitude evoked by standard stimulus at different electrodes. Slashes indicate random levels. (a) Cz electrode, (b) Pz electrode, (c) Oz electrode. FES, first-episode schizophrenia; PRS, psychosis risk syndrome; HC, healthy controls

Full size image

Discussion

In the present study, we found that the P300 amplitude in the FES group was significantly lower than that in the HC group, which was consistent with prior studies on patients with schizophrenia [55,56,57,58,59]. The P300 amplitude reflects the attention resources of the subjects, with a higher amplitude indicating a higher attention level of the individual [15]. Cognitive attention resource allocation and executive function are affected by functionally or anatomically different brain networks involving a variety of brain regions, such as the parietal cortex and cingulate gyrus [60]. The general reduction in P300 amplitude may indicate impaired attention-driven working memory as reflected by different responses to the target and the standard stimuli during the oddball task in patients with FES [11, 61]. A reduced P300 amplitude may reflect other deficiency in complex cognitive processes, including working memory and contextual updating [62,63,64]. Strandburg et al. [65] reported that reduced P300 amplitude might indicate uncertainty to the target stimulus among people with FES. In a visual recognition task, P300 amplitude was significantly lower in patients with schizophrenia compared to HC, indicating that patients with schizophrenia might have difficulty integrating incoming information based on past experience [66]. Furthermore, there are few studies reporting the neuropsychological relevance of P300 in schizophrenia. In patients with schizophrenia, P300 amplitude was found associated with poor verbal memory and learning performance [67, 68]. Some studies also reported a negative association between P300 amplitude and the severity of negative symptoms of schizophrenia [69, 70].

The present study found that the P300 amplitude decreased most significantly in the parietal lobe of patients with FES, which was consistent with most prior findings [71, 72]. The widespread cognitive deficits in schizophrenia are largely due to the inability to regulate activity flexibly in the posterior parietal cortex, which stores information in the current working memory [73]. A study of childhood schizophrenia found that gray matter abnormalities originated in the parietal lobes, these deficits progressed anteriorly into frontal lobes, suggesting that structural abnormalities in the parietal lobes may appear early in the disease [74].

We found a decrease in P300 amplitude in patients with PRS compared with HC, which was in line with previous findings [75,76,77,78,79,80]. A systematic review concluded that reduced P300 amplitude is a reliable finding among individuals with PRS and therefore has the potential to be an indicator for higher risk of psychosis [11]. However, few studies have compared P300 amplitudes between people with PRS that developed into schizophrenia and those who do not, and the results are inconclusive [13, 78, 81]. A recent study showed that individuals with PRS who achieved remission during a follow-up period of at least 22 months had a baseline P300 amplitude similar to that of HC and higher than that of individuals with PRS who subsequently converted to psychosis and who still had symptoms [81]. Taken together, P300 amplitudes appear to be helpful for the screening of individuals at high risk of developing psychosis, but more longitudinal studies with follow-up are needed to determine its potential for clinical use.

The present study found that the changes in P300 amplitude among individuals with PRS mainly happened in the parietal and occipital lobes. Several imaging studies have supported structural changes in the parietal and occipital lobes in patients with PRS. For example, a longitudinal whole-brain imaging study of young patients with PRS showed that ventricular dilatation in the parietal cortex was associated with a progressive reduction in gray matter, whereas no such association was seen in normal subjects [82]. Another imaging study found a significant reduction in bilateral occipital gray matter volume in individuals with a high genetic risk of psychosis [83]. Some basic symptoms may show up in childhood before the onset of psychosis [84] and may be related to subtle disturbances that affect the development of an individual’s integrated sense of self. For instance, abnormalities in the inferior parietal lobe in childhood may lead to impairments in sensory integration and the ability to distinguish between self and others. During subsequent development in adolescence, structural and functional changes in brain regions that form the neural circuits related to the ego may further contribute to abnormal processing of self-experience and self-reflection, which might leading to psychosis later in life [85].

We also found that HC exhibited the highest P300 amplitude at the Pz electrode, followed by individuals with PRS and the lowest in individuals with FES, which, to our knowledge, is the first time that a descending hierarchy of P300 amplitude has been reported in patients with psychosis. A previous study on visual P300 in patients with PRS and FES in early adulthood [26] and another study of auditory and visual P300 in patients with schizophrenia and PRS [12] found no significant difference in P300 amplitude between patients with PRS and those with schizophrenia, although a reduction in P300 amplitude was found in the two patient groups compared to HC. A study on auditory P300 in children and adolescents with schizophrenia and PRS found although P300 amplitude was reduced in individuals with schizophrenia, there was no significant differences in P300 amplitude between HC and individuals with PRS, which, according to the authors, might reflect clinical heterogeneity among people with PRS [86]. Besides, most of the subjects included in the above studies had already been on antipsychotic medications, thus, the influence of medications on the results could not be completely ruled out. The present study provides additional evidence that the reduction in visual P300 amplitude reflects ongoing pathophysiological processes from PRS to FES, making it a potential marker of vulnerability in early psychosis.

The present study suggested that the P300 amplitude is a potential indicator to distinguish between FES, PRS and HC individuals with high identification sensitivity. In the present study, the AUC of P300 amplitude evoked by target/standard stimulus at the Pz electrode was 0.83/0.82 in distinguishing FES from HC among children and adolescence, which indicated a good diagnostic value of AUC of P300 amplitude. However, the present study found that the P300 amplitude was only moderately good at distinguishing PRS from HC among children and adolescents, which might be attributed to the heterogeneity of clinical symptoms among children and adolescents with PRS as well as multiple causal biological mechanisms [7]. Given that the symptoms of some children and adolescents with PRS might be transient, mild, or insidious [10], early neurophysiological impairment was not evident. Moreover, the experimental task in the present study was relatively simple, and more difficult tasks are needed to distinguish between subtypes of the same disease. With regard to the heterogeneity of individuals and experimental paradigms, further studies are also needed to examine the value of EEG indicators as a diagnostic tool for psychosis.

The present study has some limitations; thus, the results obtained should be interpreted with caution. First, the sample size of this study was limited, especially for the PRS group; thus, these results must be confirmed in a larger-scale study. Second, this study was a cross-sectional study without the longitudinal follow-up for disease outcomes and neurophysiological dynamics. Longitudinal studies with a follow-up period for PRS may further clarify whether P300 can be used as a neurophysiological marker to predict the onset and prognosis of psychosis. Despite these limitations, this study was the first to find early visual P300 deficits in children and adolescents with FES and PRS, with the exclusion of the influence of medications and chronic medical conditions, which may provide a neuroelectrophysiological basis for the explanation of pathological mechanisms of early-onset psychosis as well as a basis for the use of P300 amplitude in the early diagnosis of psychosis.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Häfner H, Riecher A, Maurer K, Löffler W, Munk-Jørgensen P, Strömgren E. How does gender influence age at first hospitalization for schizophrenia? A transnational case register study. Psychol Med. 1989;19(4):903–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Häfner H, an der Heiden W. Epidemiology of schizophrenia. Can J Psychiatry Revue canadienne de psychiatrie. 1997;42(2):139–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Saha S, Chant D, Welham J, McGrath J. A systematic review of the prevalence of schizophrenia. PLoS Med. 2005;2(5):e141.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Asarnow JR, Tompson MC, McGrath EP. Annotation: childhood-onset schizophrenia: clinical and treatment issues. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2004;45(2):180–94.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng X, Zhang H, Zhang J, Xu P, Jin P, Fang H, Chu K, Ke X. Comparison of clinical characteristics and treatment efficacy in childhood-onset schizophrenia and adolescent-onset schizophrenia in mainland China: a retrospective study. Early Interv Psychiat. 2021;15(6):1721–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Modinos G, McGuire P. The prodromal phase of psychosis. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015;30:100–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Taylor JH, Huque ZM. Commentary: Schizophrenia prevention and prodromal psychosis in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2021;62(5):674–6.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rajan C. The psychosis-risk syndrome. Handbook for diagnosis and Follow-Up. Psychiatrist; 2011.

  9. Wiltink S, Velthorst E, Nelson B, McGorry PM, Yung AR. Declining transition rates to psychosis: the contribution of potential changes in referral pathways to an ultra-high-risk service. Early Interv Psychiat. 2015;9(3):200–6.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tor J, Dolz M, Sintes A, Muñoz D, Pardo M, de la Serna E, Puig O, Sugranyes G, Baeza I. Clinical high risk for psychosis in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018;27(6):683–700.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lepock JR, Mizrahi R, Korostil M, Bagby RM, Pang EW, Kiang M. Event-related potentials in the clinical high-risk (CHR) state for psychosis: a systematic review. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2018;49(4):215–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hamilton HK, Woods SW, Roach BJ, Llerena K, McGlashan TH, Srihari VH, Ford JM, Mathalon DH. Auditory and visual oddball stimulus Processing Deficits in Schizophrenia and the psychosis risk syndrome: forecasting psychosis risk with P300. Schizophr Bull. 2019;45(5):1068–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bodatsch M, Brockhaus-Dumke A, Klosterkötter J, Ruhrmann S. Forecasting psychosis by event-related potentials-systematic review and specific meta-analysis. Biol Psychiatry. 2015;77(11):951–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiology: Official J Int Federation Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;118(10):2128–48.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dallmer-Zerbe I, Popp F, Lam AP, Philipsen A, Herrmann CS. Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS) as a Tool to modulate P300 amplitude in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): preliminary findings. Brain Topogr. 2020;33(2):191–207.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Herzog ND, Steinfath TP, Tarrasch R. Critical Dynamics in spontaneous resting-state oscillations are Associated with the attention-related P300 ERP in a Go/Nogo Task. Front NeuroSci. 2021;15:632922.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Thomaschewski M, Heldmann M, Uter JC, Varbelow D, Münte TF, Keck T. Changes in attentional resources during the acquisition of laparoscopic surgical skills. BJS open 2021, 5(2).

  18. Wang Y, Huang X, Zhang J, Huang S, Wang J, Feng Y, Jiang Z, Wang H, Yin S. Bottom-Up and top-down attention Impairment Induced by Long-Term exposure to noise in the absence of threshold shifts. Front Neurol. 2022;13:836683.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Pobric G, Taylor JR, Ramalingam HM, Pye E, Robinson L, Vassallo G, Jung J, Bhandary M, Szumanska-Ryt K, Theodosiou L, et al. Cognitive and electrophysiological Correlates of Working Memory impairments in neurofibromatosis type 1. J Autism Dev Disord. 2022;52(4):1478–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gaspar PA, Ruiz S, Zamorano F, Altayó M, Pérez C, Bosman CA, Aboitiz F. P300 amplitude is insensitive to working memory load in schizophrenia. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:29.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gonzalez GDS, Schnyer DM. Attention and working memory biases to Black and Asian Faces during Intergroup Contexts. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2743.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Guerrero L, Bouazzaoui B, Isingrini M, Angel L. Involvement of executive control in neural capacity related to working memory in aging: an ERP P300 study. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 2022.

  23. Toyoshima K, Toyomaki A, Miyazaki A, Martinez-Aran A, Vieta E, Kusumi I. Associations between cognitive impairment and P300 mean amplitudes in individuals with bipolar disorder in remission. Psychiatry Res. 2020;290:113125.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bramon E, McDonald C, Croft RJ, Landau S, Filbey F, Gruzelier JH, Sham PC, Frangou S, Murray RM. Is the P300 wave an endophenotype for schizophrenia? A meta-analysis and a family study. NeuroImage. 2005;27(4):960–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Oribe N, Hirano Y, Kanba S, del Re EC, Seidman LJ, Mesholam-Gately R, Spencer KM, McCarley RW, Niznikiewicz MA. Early and late stages of visual processing in individuals in prodromal state and first episode schizophrenia: an ERP study. Schizophr Res. 2013;146(1–3):95–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee SY, Namkoong K, Cho HH, Song DH, An SK. Reduced visual P300 amplitudes in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis and first-episode schizophrenia. Neurosci Lett. 2010;486(3):156–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Oribe N, Hirano Y, Kanba S, Del Re E, Seidman L, Mesholam-Gately R, Goldstein JM, Shenton M, Spencer KM, McCarley RW, et al. Progressive reduction of visual P300 amplitude in patients with first-episode schizophrenia: an ERP study. Schizophr Bull. 2015;41(2):460–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Perrottelli A, Giordano GM, Brando F, Giuliani L, Mucci A. EEG-Based measures in At-Risk Mental State and early stages of Schizophrenia: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:653642.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hassan WA, Darweesh AEM, Abdel-Rahman AA, Ahmad HEK, Fahmy IFG. P300 cognitive assessment in patients with first-episode psychosis: a prospective case-control study. Middle East Current Psychiatry 2020, 27(1).

  30. Xu Y, Chai H, Zhang B, Gao Q, Fan H, Zheng L, Mao H, Zhang Y, Wang W. Event-related potentials elicited by the Deutsch high-low word illusion in the patients with first-episode schizophrenia with auditory hallucinations. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16:33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hamilton HK, Roach BJ, Mathalon DH. Forecasting Remission from the psychosis risk syndrome with mismatch negativity and P300: potentials and pitfalls. Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimaging. 2021;6(2):178–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Frommann I, Brinkmeyer J, Ruhrmann S, Hack E, Brockhaus-Dumke A, Bechdolf A, Wölwer W, Klosterkötter J, Maier W, Wagner M. Auditory P300 in individuals clinically at risk for psychosis. Int J Psychophysiology: Official J Int Organ Psychophysiol. 2008;70(3):192–205.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schall U, Catts SV, Chaturvedi S, Liebert B, Redenbach J, Karayanidis F, Ward PB. The effect of clozapine therapy on frontal lobe dysfunction in schizophrenia: neuropsychology and event-related potential measures. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 1998;1(1):19–29.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Turetsky B, Colbath EA, Gur RE. P300 subcomponent abnormalities in schizophrenia: II. Longitudinal stability and relationship to symptom change. Biol Psychiatry. 1998;43(1):31–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ford JM, White PM, Csernansky JG, Faustman WO, Roth WT, Pfefferbaum A. ERPs in schizophrenia: effects of antipsychotic medication. Biol Psychiatry. 1994;36(3):153–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Duncan CC. Event-related brain potentials: a window on information processing in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1988;14(2):199–203.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mathalon DH, Ford JM, Pfefferbaum A. Trait and state aspects of P300 amplitude reduction in schizophrenia: a retrospective longitudinal study. Biol Psychiatry. 2000;47(5):434–49.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. van Dinteren R, Arns M, Jongsma ML, Kessels RP. P300 development across the lifespan: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2):e87347.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Spitzer RL, Endicott J, Robins E. Research diagnostic criteria: rationale and reliability. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978;35(6):773–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Baca-Garcia E, Perez-Rodriguez MM, Basurte-Villamor I, Fernandez del Moral AL, Jimenez-Arriero MA, de Gonzalez JL, Saiz-Ruiz J, Oquendo MA. Diagnostic stability of psychiatric disorders in clinical practice. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:210–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cannon TD, Yu C, Addington J, Bearden CE, Cadenhead KS, Cornblatt BA, Heinssen R, Jeffries CD, Mathalon DH, McGlashan TH, et al. An individualized risk calculator for Research in Prodromal psychosis. Am J Psychiatry. 2016;173(10):980–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Fusar-Poli P, Rutigliano G, Stahl D, Davies C, Bonoldi I, Reilly T, McGuire P. Development and validation of a clinically based risk calculator for the Transdiagnostic prediction of psychosis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(5):493–500.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Nieman DH, Ruhrmann S, Dragt S, Soen F, van Tricht MJ, Koelman JH, Bour LJ, Velthorst E, Becker HE, Weiser M, et al. Psychosis prediction: stratification of risk estimation with information-processing and premorbid functioning variables. Schizophr Bull. 2014;40(6):1482–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hamilton HK, Boos AK, Mathalon DH. Electroencephalography and Event-Related potential biomarkers in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis. Biol Psychiatry. 2020;88(4):294–303.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Niznikiewicz MA. Neurobiological approaches to the study of clinical and genetic high risk for developing psychosis. Psychiatry Res. 2019;277:17–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gnanavel S, Robert RS. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition, and the impact of events scale-revised. Chest. 2013;144(6):1974.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Miller TJ, McGlashan TH, Rosen JL, Cadenhead K, Cannon T, Ventura J, McFarlane W, Perkins DO, Pearlson GD, Woods SW. Prodromal assessment with the structured interview for prodromal syndromes and the scale of prodromal symptoms: predictive validity, interrater reliability, and training to reliability. Schizophr Bull. 2003;29(4):703–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Taylor JH, Calkins ME, Gur RE. Markers of psychosis risk in the General Population. Biol Psychiatry. 2020;88(4):337–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Opler LA. Positive and negative syndrome scale for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kaufman J, Birmaher B, Brent D, Rao U, Flynn C, Moreci P, Williamson D, Ryan N. Schedule for affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): initial reliability and validity data. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(7):980–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Grizzle R. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition. Springer US.

  52. Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV). San Antonio 2008.

  53. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, Müller M. pROC: an open-source package for R and S + to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011;12:77.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3(1):32–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wang B, Zartaloudi E, Linden JF, Bramon E. Neurophysiology in psychosis: the quest for disease biomarkers. 2022, 12(1):100.

  56. Bramon E, Rabe-Hesketh S, Sham P, Murray RM, Frangou S. Meta-analysis of the P300 and P50 waveforms in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2004;70(2–3):315–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Wada M, Kurose S, Miyazaki T, Nakajima S, Masuda F, Mimura Y, Nishida H, Ogyu K, Tsugawa S, Mashima Y, et al. The P300 event-related potential in bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2019;256:234–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Qiu YQ, Tang YX, Chan RC, Sun XY, He J. P300 aberration in first-episode schizophrenia patients: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e97794.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Turetsky BI, Dress EM, Braff DL, Calkins ME, Green MF, Greenwood TA, Gur RE, Gur RC, Lazzeroni LC, Nuechterlein KH, et al. The utility of P300 as a schizophrenia endophenotype and predictive biomarker: clinical and socio-demographic modulators in COGS-2. Schizophr Res. 2015;163(1–3):53–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Dosenbach NU, Fair DA, Cohen AL, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. A dual-networks architecture of top-down control. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(3):99–105.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Kappenman ES, Luck SJ. The Oxford Handbook of event-related potential components. Oxford Library of Psychology; 2012.

  62. Cui T, Wang PP, Liu S, Zhang X. P300 amplitude and latency in autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analysis. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017;26(2):177–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Scharinger C, Soutschek A, Schubert T, Gerjets P. Comparison of the Working Memory load in N-Back and Working Memory Span Tasks by means of EEG frequency Band Power and P300 Amplitude. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017;11:6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Howe AS, Pinto A, De Luca V. Meta-analysis of P300 waveform in panic disorder. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(10):3221–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Strandburg RJ, Marsh JT, Brown WS, Asarnow RF, Guthrie D. Information-processing deficits across childhood- and adult-onset schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1994;20(4):685–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Vianin P, Posada A, Hugues E, Franck N, Bovet P, Parnas J, Jeannerod M. Reduced P300 amplitude in a visual recognition task in patients with schizophrenia. NeuroImage. 2002;17(2):911–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Kim MS, Kang SS, Youn T, Kang DH, Kim JJ, Kwon JS. Neuropsychological correlates of P300 abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2003;123(2):109–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Shajahan PM, O’Carroll RE, Glabus MF, Ebmeier KP, Blackwood DH. Correlation of auditory ‘oddball’ P300 with verbal memory deficits in schizophrenia. Psychol Med. 1997;27(3):579–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Perlman G, Foti D, Jackson F, Kotov R, Constantino E, Hajcak G. Clinical significance of auditory target P300 subcomponents in psychosis: Differential diagnosis, symptom profiles, and course. Schizophr Res. 2015;165(2–3):145–51.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Kim DW, Shim M, Kim JI, Im CH, Lee SH. Source activation of P300 correlates with negative symptom severity in patients with schizophrenia. Brain Topogr. 2014;27(2):307–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. van der Stelt O, Lieberman JA, Belger A. Auditory P300 in high-risk, recent-onset and chronic schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2005;77(2–3):309–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ertekin E, Üçok A, Keskin-Ergen Y, Devrim-Üçok M. Deficits in Go and NoGo P3 potentials in patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2017;254:126–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Hahn B, Robinson BM, Leonard CJ, Luck SJ, Gold JM. Posterior parietal cortex dysfunction is Central to Working Memory Storage and Broad Cognitive Deficits in Schizophrenia. J Neuroscience: Official J Soc Neurosci. 2018;38(39):8378–87.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Thompson PM, Vidal C, Giedd JN, Gochman P, Blumenthal J, Nicolson R, Toga AW, Rapoport JL. Mapping adolescent brain change reveals dynamic wave of accelerated gray matter loss in very early-onset schizophrenia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(20):11650–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Mondragón-Maya A, Solís-Vivanco R, León-Ortiz P, Rodríguez-Agudelo Y, Yáñez-Téllez G, Bernal-Hernández J, Cadenhead KS, de la Fuente-Sandoval C. Reduced P3a amplitudes in antipsychotic naïve first-episode psychosis patients and individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis. J Psychiatr Res. 2013;47(6):755–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Ozgürdal S, Gudlowski Y, Witthaus H, Kawohl W, Uhl I, Hauser M, Gorynia I, Gallinat J, Heinze M, Heinz A, et al. Reduction of auditory event-related P300 amplitude in subjects with at-risk mental state for schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2008;105(1–3):272–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Fusar-Poli P, Crossley N, Woolley J, Carletti F, Perez-Iglesias R, Broome M, Johns L, Tabraham P, Bramon E, McGuire P. White matter alterations related to P300 abnormalities in individuals at high risk for psychosis: an MRI-EEG study. J Psychiatry Neuroscience: JPN. 2011;36(4):239–48.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Tang Y, Wang J, Zhang T, Xu L, Qian Z, Cui H, Tang X, Li H, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Shenton ME, et al. P300 as an index of transition to psychosis and of remission: data from a clinical high risk for psychosis study and review of literature. Schizophr Res. 2020;226:74–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Bramon E, Shaikh M, Broome M, Lappin J, Bergé D, Day F, Woolley J, Tabraham P, Madre M, Johns L, et al. Abnormal P300 in people with high risk of developing psychosis. NeuroImage. 2008;41(2):553–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Oribe N, Hirano Y, Del Re E, Mesholam-Gately RI, Woodberry KA, Ueno T, Kanba S, Onitsuka T, Shenton ME, Spencer KM, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of visual P300 amplitude in clinical high-risk subjects: an event-related potential study. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;74(10):527–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Hamilton HK, Roach BJ, Bachman PM, Belger A, Carrion RE, Duncan E, Johannesen JK, Light GA, Niznikiewicz MA, Addington J, et al. Association between P300 responses to auditory Oddball Stimuli and Clinical Outcomes in the psychosis risk syndrome. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(11):1187–97.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Chung Y, Haut KM, He G, van Erp TGM, McEwen S, Addington J, Bearden CE, Cadenhead K, Cornblatt B, Mathalon DH, et al. Ventricular enlargement and progressive reduction of cortical gray matter are linked in prodromal youth who develop psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2017;189:169–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Zhao C, Zhu J, Liu X, Pu C, Lai Y, Chen L, Yu X, Hong N. Structural and functional brain abnormalities in schizophrenia: a cross-sectional study at different stages of the disease. Prog Neuro-psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2018;83:27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Schultze-Lutter F. Subjective symptoms of schizophrenia in research and the clinic: the basic symptom concept. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35(1):5–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Brent BK, Seidman LJ, Thermenos HW, Holt DJ, Keshavan MS. Self-disturbances as a possible premorbid indicator of schizophrenia risk: a neurodevelopmental perspective. Schizophr Res. 2014;152(1):73–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Graber K, Bosquet Enlow M, Duffy FH, D’Angelo E, Sideridis G, Hyde DE, Morelli N, Tembulkar S, Gonzalez-Heydrich J. P300 amplitude attenuation in high risk and early onset psychosis youth. Schizophr Res. 2019;210:228–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all parents, children, and adolescents for their continuous support and participation in our studies.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2019YFA0706200), the National Key R&D Program of China(2017YFC1309904), the Hunan Province Innovation Province Construction Project (2019SK2334) and the Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation for Postgraduate (CX20190159).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, and National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410011, China

    Yaru Zhang, Tingyu Yang, Yuqiong He, Kun Zhang, Xingyue Jin, Xilong Cui & Xuerong Luo

  2. The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders & Beijing Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders, Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Fanchao Meng

  3. Advanced Innovation Center for Human Brain Protection, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Fanchao Meng

Authors
  1. Yaru Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tingyu Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuqiong He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fanchao Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xingyue Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xilong Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xuerong Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YRZ was responsible for data collection, data management, data analyses and manuscript writing and was a key contributing author of the manuscript. TYY and YQH was responsible for data collection and assisted with manuscript revisions. FCM, KZ and XYJ assisted with patient recruitment and contributed to the authorship of the paper. XLC and XRL was responsible for management and oversight of the study, manuscript revisions and conducted clinical evaluations of symptom severity for this study. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xilong Cui or Xuerong Luo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This clinical study was conducted in accordance with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki and was strictly reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Furthermore, the subjects and their guardians have signed the informed consent for the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Yang, T., He, Y. et al. Value of P300 amplitude in the diagnosis of untreated first-episode schizophrenia and psychosis risk syndrome in children and adolescents. BMC Psychiatry 23, 743 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05218-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05218-5

Keywords

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us