Back

Lab-Based and Self-Reported Indices of Fitness Show Lowered Fitness and Insight into Fitness in Individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis

Damme, K. S. F.; Sloan, R. P.; Bartels, M. N.; Ozsan, A.; Ospina, L. H.; Kimhy, D.; Mittal, V. A.

2020-05-02 physiology
10.1101/2020.04.30.060244 bioRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionExercise is a promising intervention for clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR) populations, who have attenuated positive symptoms, but evidence suggests that these youth may require tailored exercise interventions. Presently, the scope of the problem is unknown, as these youth may not be reliable reporters on fitness. This issue is compounded by the fact that there have been no investigations that utilized a formal fitness assessment in this critical population. The present study aims to determine the level of fitness in CHR youth with lab-based measures, test how effectively self-report measures characterize objective fitness indices, and explore clinical factors that may be interrupting reliable self-report-an important tool if these interventions are to be taken to scale. MethodsForty CHR individuals completed an exercise survey and lab-based indices of fitness (i.e., VO2max and BMI). Forty healthy volunteers completed lab indices of fitness and a structured clinical interview ruling out the presence of psychiatric illness. ResultsCHR youth showed greater BMI and lower VO2max compared to healthy volunteers. In the CHR group, abstract self-report items (perceived fitness) did not reflect lab indices of fitness, whereas specific exercise behaviors (intensity of exercise) showed stronger correlations with laboratory-based fitness measurements. Exploratory analyses suggested that positive symptoms involving grandiosity, and negative symptoms such as avolition, correlated with discrepancy between self-perception and laboratory findings of fitness. DiscussionResults suggest that CHR individuals are less objectively fit than matched controls, and that it will be important to consider unique population characteristics when weighing self-report data.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Schizophrenia Research
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
42.1%
2
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.2%
50% of probability mass above
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 16%
10.7%
4
Schizophrenia Bulletin
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
5
Molecular Psychiatry
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.9%
7
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.8%
8
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
9
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
10
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
11
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
12
International Journal of Psychophysiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
13
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
14
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
16
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
17
Cells
232 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
18
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
19
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
21
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
23
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.5%