Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-04T15:06:06.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Transdiagnostic comparisons of intellectual abilities and work outcome in patients with mental disorders: multicentre study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2022

Chika Sumiyoshi*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Human Development and Culture, Fukushima University, Fukushima, Japan; Department of Preventive Intervention for Psychiatric Disorders and Department of Pathology of Mental Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Japan; and Department of Pathology of Mental Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Japan
Kazutaka Ohi
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu, Japan
Haruo Fujino
Affiliation:
United Graduate School of Child Development, Osaka University, Suita, Japan
Hidenaga Yamamori
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology of Mental Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Tokyo, Japan; Department of Psychiatry, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan; and Japan Community Health Care Organization, Osaka Hospital, Osaka, Japan
Michiko Fujimoto
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology of Mental Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Japan; and Department of Psychiatry, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
Yuka Yasuda
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology of Mental Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Japan; and Medical Corporation Foster, Life Grow Brilliant Mental Clinic, Osaka, Japan
Yota Uno
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology of Mental Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Japan
Junichi Takahashi
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
Kentaro Morita
Affiliation:
Day Hospital (Psychiatric Day Care) Department of Rehabilitation, University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Asuka Katsuki
Affiliation:
Nijofukushikai Social Welfare Corporation Senjuen, Fukuoka, Japan
Maeri Yamamoto
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
Yuko Okahisa
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
Ayumi Sata
Affiliation:
Kuginuki Mental Clinic, Hirakata, Japan
Eiichi Katsumoto
Affiliation:
Katsumoto Mental Clinic, Osaka, Japan
Michihiko Koeda
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Nippon Medical School, Tama Nagayama Hospital, Tama, Japan
Yoji Hirano
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
Masahito Nakataki
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Tokushima University Hospital, Tokushima, Japan
Junya Matsumoto
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology of Mental Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Japan
Kenichiro Miura
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology of Mental Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Japan
Naoki Hashimoto
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
Manabu Makinodan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Nara Medical University School of Medicine, Kashihara, Japan
Tsutomu Takahashi
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, University of Toyama Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Toyama, Japan
Kiyotaka Nemoto
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
Toshifumi Kishimoto
Affiliation:
Department of Health Science, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan
Michio Suzuki
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropsychiatry, University of Toyama Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Toyama, Japan
Tomiki Sumiyoshi
Affiliation:
Department of Preventive Intervention for Psychiatric Disorders, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Japan
Ryota Hashimoto
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology of Mental Diseases, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Japan
*
Correspondence: Chika Sumiyoshi. Email: sumiyoshi@educ.fukushima-u.ac.jp
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Cognitive impairment is common in people with mental disorders, leading to transdiagnostic classification based on cognitive characteristics. However, few studies have used this approach for intellectual abilities and functional outcomes.

Aims

The present study aimed to classify people with mental disorders based on intellectual abilities and functional outcomes in a data-driven manner.

Method

Seven hundred and forty-nine patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression disorder or autism spectrum disorder and 1030 healthy control subjects were recruited from facilities in various regions of Japan. Two independent k-means cluster analyses were performed. First, intelligence variables (current estimated IQ, premorbid IQ, and IQ discrepancy) were included. Second, number of work hours per week was included instead of premorbid IQ.

Results

Four clusters were identified in the two analyses. These clusters were specifically characterised in terms of IQ discrepancy in the first cluster analysis, whereas the work variable was the most salient feature in the second cluster analysis. Distributions of clinical diagnoses in the two cluster analyses showed that all diagnoses were unevenly represented across the clusters.

Conclusions

Intellectual abilities and work outcomes are effective classifiers in transdiagnostic approaches. The results of our study also suggest the importance of diagnosis-specific strategies to support functional recovery in people with mental disorders.

Type
Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

The cognitive and intellectual decline associated with schizophrenia (SCZ) has been studied extensively. It has been reported that this decline is partially independent of clinical symptomsReference Heinrichs1,Reference Harvey and Bellack2 and that it prevents favourable functional outcomes.Reference Green3,Reference Sumiyoshi, Fujino, Yamamori, Kudo, Azechi and Fujimoto4 Cognitive impairments are thought to be related to genes and have therefore been suggested to represent a cognitive endophenotype Reference Braff, Freedman, Schork and Gottesman5. Recently, real-world outcomes closely linked to cognition (e.g. vocational functioning) were also reported to be a candidate endophenotype of mental disorders,Reference Weiser, van Os and Davidson6,Reference Harvey, McClure, Patterson, McGrath, Pulver and Bowie7 because they meet the criteria (e.g. heritability). For example, a family study reported that vocational deficits were much more likely to co-occur between index cases with SCZ and their first-degree relatives than between the cases and healthy controls.Reference Kendler, McGuire, Gruenberg and Walsh8 The odds ratio (OR = 3.4) was much higher than those for other clinical traits such as schizotypal signs (OR = 1.9) or social avoidance (OR = 1.6).

Cognitive impairments are also noticeable in other disorders, including bipolar disorderReference Harvey, Wingo, Burdick and Baldessarini9Reference Seidman, Kremen, Koren, Faraone, Goldstein and Tsuang13 and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).Reference Oliver, Moxon-Emre, Lai, Grennan, Voineskos and Ameis14 The commonality of cognitive impairments in mental disorders has led to transdiagnostic studies aiming to identify subgroups based on cognitive functioning. A previous study with a data-driven approach found distinct subgroups, including a neuropsychologically normal cluster, a globally impaired cluster, and one or two additional clusters with mixed cognitive profiles.Reference Lewandowski, Sperry, Cohen and Ongur15 This finding was replicated using an established assessment tool, MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery,Reference Nuechterlein and Green16 in a different sample.Reference Lewandowski, Baker, McCarthy, Norris and Ongur17

Although evidence has been accumulated to validate transdiagnostic classification based on cognitive impairments,Reference Lewandowski, Sperry, Cohen and Ongur15,Reference Lewandowski, Baker, McCarthy, Norris and Ongur17,Reference Lee, Rizzo, Altshuler, Glahn, Miklowitz and Sugar18 few studies have addressed classification from the perspective of intellectual abilities in people with mental disorders. Intelligence is a multifaceted construct. Therefore, the development of Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) batteries has eliminated dual IQ (i.e., verbal IQ and performance IQ) and produced four indices – verbal comprehension, working memory, processing speed and perceptual reasoning – in the WAIS-4. Verbal comprehension is considered to reflect knowledge-based intelligence (crystallised intelligence), whereas the other indices reflect performance-based intelligence (fluid intelligence).

As is the case for cognition, it was assumed that people with mental disorders could also be classified based on their intellectual functioning. In addition, the endophenotypic nature of real-world outcomes suggests that they would also be effective as transdiagnostic classifiers.

The current study aimed first to investigate subgroups of people with mental disorders from the perspective of their intellectual abilities and, second, to classify patients by adding work outcome. For these purposes, two independent k-means cluster analyses were conducted, including variables related to intellectual abilities and work outcome. In both analyses, we also examined distributions of diagnoses and profiles for crystallised and fluid intelligence.

Method

Participants

Seven hundred and forty-nine patients and 1030 healthy controls were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria for patients included (a) meeting the DSM-IV criteria for SCZ (n = 528), bipolar disorder (n = 54), major depression disorder (MDD, n = 86), or ASD (n = 81); and (b) being 70 years old or younger. The details of participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics are summarised in Supplementary Table 1 available at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.50. Patients were recruited at the following facilities: Osaka University Hospital, Hokkaido University Hospital, University of Tokyo Hospital, Kyushu University Hospital, Okayama University Hospital, Nagoya University Hospital, Hospital of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Kanazawa Medical University Hospital, Tokushima University Hospital, Toyama University Hospital, Nippon Medical School Hospital and Nara Medical University Hospital. Healthy controls were recruited at Osaka University, Tokyo University, Nagoya University, Kanazawa Medical University, Tokushima University, Nara Medical University, Toyama University, Nippon Medical School, and the University of Occupational and Environmental Health. Data were obtained between 2016 and 2018. All participants provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the ethical committee of each facility. The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Assessments

Demographic and clinical variables

Demographic information (age and education) was obtained from all participants. For the patients, clinical variables (age at onset, duration of illness, and antipsychotic medication) were also measured.

Variables for intelligence

Current estimated intellectual ability (current EIQ) was assessed by the abbreviated version of the WAIS-3, which includes similarities and symbol search. The third edition was used because the WAIS-4 had not been released in Japan during the data collection period. The short form showed validity, with high predictive accuracy (R2 = 0.8) for full IQ.Reference Sumiyoshi, Fujino and Sumiyoshi19 Premorbid IQ was estimated using the Japanese version of the Adult Reading Test.Reference Matsuoka, Uno, Kasai, Koyama and Kim20 It is composed of 50 Japanese kanjis (ideographic scripts), and the reading task is considered to be equivalent to the irregular word reading employed in the National Adult Reading Test.Reference Nelson21 IQ discrepancy was estimated by subtracting premorbid IQ from current EIQ.Reference Heinrichs, Pinnock, Muharib, Hartman, Goldberg and McDermid Vaz22

A variable for work outcome

Total work hours per week were obtained from the Social Activity Assessment (SAA)Reference Ohi, Sumiyoshi, Fujino, Yasuda, Yamamori and Fujimoto23 and used as a measure of work outcome. The SAA is a simplified version of the Modified Social Adjustment Scale-Work Outcome (details available from the author on request).Reference Subotnik, Nuechterlein, Kelly, Kupic, Brosemer and Turner24,Reference Fujino, Sumiyoshi and Sumiyoshi25 It is composed of work for pay, work at home, and student sections. The former two sections evaluate work activities including work hours per week in the past 3 months. If a participant experienced both work for pay and work at home, the work hours of the sections were summed. For the purposes of the current study, the student section was excluded. The instrument was administered in a self-report manner or through interviews with psychologists or doctors.

Statistical analyses

Cluster analyses

k-means cluster analyses were conducted to identify subgroups, one using variables related to intelligence (current EIQ, premorbid IQ and IQ discrepancy) and the other using work instead of premorbid IQ. Premorbid IQ was excluded from the latter analysis because it did not seem to be related to the cluster characteristics in the former analysis. The scores were standardised using the means and standard deviations of healthy controls. The number of clusters was set to 4 following previous studies.Reference Lewandowski, Sperry, Cohen and Ongur15,Reference Lewandowski, Baker, McCarthy, Norris and Ongur17 The fit of the cluster solutions was examined using linear discriminant analyses.

Characteristics by cluster

Cluster profiles were compared regarding demographic (age and education), clinical (age at onset, duration of illness and antipsychotic use), intelligence (current EIQ, premorbid IQ and IQ discrepancy) and work outcome variables using multivariate analysis of variance. In addition, the similarities and symbol search scores used to estimate current EIQ were independently compared across the clusters to examine profile differences between crystallised (performance on similarities) and fluid (performance on symbol search) intelligence.

Diagnostic distributions by cluster

Distributions by clinical diagnoses across clusters were examined with χ2 statistics.

Results

Cluster analysis by intellectual abilities

Linear discriminant analysis indicated a good fit for the four-cluster solution, with a 98.0% classification accuracy on average (cluster 1, 99.1%; cluster 2, 95.6%; cluster 3, 97.9%; cluster 4, 98.6%).

Characteristics by cluster in the first cluster analysis

The characteristics of the clusters are summarised in Table 1, and the cluster profiles for the classification variables are shown in Fig. 1(a–c). Current EIQ gradually decreased from cluster 1 to cluster 4, with an approximately 10–15 point decrease (Fig. 1(a), Table 1). For premorbid IQ, all clusters fell into the near-normal range (>85, within 100 ± 1 s.d.[15]), although cluster differences tended to be significant owing to a relatively large cluster size (>100, at least). Relatively uniform premorbid IQs were considered not to be a critical variable when classifying individuals with mental disorders based on their intellectual functioning. Thus, this variable was not included in the second cluster analysis described below.

Table 1 Characteristics of clusters

CPZ, chlorpromazine equivalent; HC, healthy controls.

Fig. 1 Cluster profiles and diagnostic distributions across clusters for intelligence variables: (a) current EIQ, (b) premorbid IQ, (c) IQ discrepancy, (d) subtest score and (e) diagnostic distribution from the first cluster analysis. HC, healthy controls.

Unlike the IQ variables, a sharp contrast was observed for IQ discrepancies. Roughly, clusters were divided into two groups, one showing a less than 10 point decline (clusters 1 and 2) and the other showing an almost 20 point decline (clusters 3 and 4) (Fig. 1(c), Table 1). Based on previous studies,Reference Badcock, Dragovic, Waters and Jablensky26Reference Weickert, Goldberg, Gold, Bigelow, Egan and Weinberger29 cluster 1 and cluster 2 were defined as ‘preserved’, as the patients had a normal range of IQ (above 90) and a less than 10 point IQ decline. On the other hand, cluster 3 and cluster 4 were defined as ‘discrepant’ (‘deteriorated’ in the terms of previous studies), as the patients showed a greater than 10 point decline. The discrepant group received larger amounts of antipsychotics than the preserved group (Table 1). Regarding other variables, age did not significantly differ among clusters, and education was almost the same in cluster 2 (preserved group) and cluster 3 (discrepant group) (Table 1).

The profiles based on the subtests exhibited a disassociation between similarity and symbol search; they were 2–3 points lower in the latter case than in the former, except in cluster 4 (Fig. 1(d), Table 1).

Diagnostic distribution by cluster in the first cluster analysis

Table 2 presents the χ2 statistics for the clusters. All diagnoses were represented in each cluster but not evenly. Figure 1(e) illustrates a contrasting trend between SCZ and other diagnoses; the peak occurred in cluster 3 for SCZ and in cluster 1 for other diagnoses. Overall, SCZ was overrepresented in discrepant clusters, yielding larger χ2 statistics in cluster 3 (χ2 = 4.2) and cluster 4 (χ2 = 6.4), in contrast to bipolar disorder, MDD and ASD, which had the largest representations in the preserved cluster (cluster 1, bipolar disorder: χ2 = 5.2, MDD: χ2 = 4.1, ASD: χ2 = 13.0).

Table 2 Distribution of diagnoses by cluster

ASD, autism spectrum disorder; BP, bipolar disorder; CPZ, chlorpromazine equivalent; HC, healthy controls; MDD, major depression disorder; SCZ, schizophrenia.

a. Observed frequency in cluster/observed frequency in total.

Pearson χ29 = 79.3 (P < 0.001).

Cluster analysis with work outcome

The classification accuracy determined by linear discriminant analysis was 97.6% on average (cluster 1, 98.3%; cluster 2, 97.3%; cluster 3, 97.4%; cluster 4, 96.9%), indicating a good fit for the four-cluster solution.

Characteristics by cluster in the second cluster analysis

The characteristics of the clusters are summarised in Table 3. As shown in the table, the cluster profiles largely differed between work outcome and intellectual abilities. Work outcome was dichotomised into just one ‘functional’ cluster (cluster 1) and three ‘less-functional’ clusters (clusters 2–4). The patients in the former cluster worked longer (43.28 h/week) than healthy controls (40.70 h/week), whereas those in the latter clusters worked less than 10 h/week (8.09 h/week, on average) (Table 3).

Table 3 Characteristics of clusters

CPZ, chlorpromazine equivalent; HC, healthy controls

However, the profiles based on the intelligence variables did not follow this trend. To illustrate this clearly, cluster profiles for the classification variables are presented in Fig. 2(a–c). Cluster 2 belonged to the less-functional group, despite its members having almost equivalent intellectual abilities to those of the healthy controls (Fig. 2(b), 2(c)). The performance on symbol search was approximately 2–3 points worse than that on similarities, except in cluster 3 (Fig. 2(d), Table 3).

Fig. 2 Cluster profiles and diagnostic distributions across clusters for intelligence variables and work outcome: (a) current EIQ, (b) premorbid IQ, (c) IQ discrepancy, (d) subtest score and (e) diagnostic distribution from the first cluster analysis. HC, healthy controls.

Diagnostic distribution by cluster in the second cluster analysis

Table 4 presents the χ2 statistics for the clusters, and Fig. 2(e) shows the distributions by diagnosis. The distribution was roughly unimodal for SCZ and ASD. The peak for SCZ occurred in a lower intellectual abilities and less-functional cluster (cluster 4), whereas the peak for ASD occurred in a higher intellectual abilities and less-functional cluster (cluster 2). The distributions for bipolar disorder and MDD were bimodal, with peaks in cluster 2 and cluster 4. SCZ was largely overrepresented in cluster 3 (χ2 = 7.9), whereas for other diagnoses, overrepresentation was noticeable in cluster 2 (bipolar disorder: χ2 = 4.2, MDD: χ2 = 11.1, ASD: χ2 = 6.3).

Table 4 Distribution of diagnoses by cluster

ASD, autism spectrum disorder; BP, bipolar disorder; HC, healthy controls; MDD, major depression disorder; SCZ, schizophrenia.

a. Observed frequency in cluster/observed frequency in total.

Pearson χ29 = 315.0 (P < 0.001).

Discussion

This study was conducted to classify patients with SCZ, bipolar disorder, MDD and ASD based on intellectual abilities and work outcome. k-means cluster analyses using these variables identified four independent clusters. The effect of diagnoses on the classifications was evident, as revealed by uneven diagnosis distributions across clusters. Performance on symbol search was worse than that on similarities in most clusters.

Cluster analysis by intellectual abilities

The characteristics of the clusters identified by intellectual abilities were mostly in accordance with the findings of a previous study reporting gradual decrements in cognitive functions across four clusters.Reference Lewandowski, Baker, McCarthy, Norris and Ongur17 The current study also found that these clusters could be categorised into preserved (clusters 1 and 2) and discrepant (clusters 3 and 4) groups according to IQ discrepancy. A similar distinction was also found in the distribution of clinical diagnoses: SCZ was largely represented in the discrepant clusters, whereas bipolar disorder, MDD and ASD were so in the preserved clusters (Fig. 1(e), Table 2). These observations are similar to those of previous transdiagnostic studiesReference Meier, Caspi and Reichenberg30,Reference Reichenberg, Caspi, Harrington, Houts, Keefe and Murray31 that reported that IQ decline was more specific to SCZ than to other mental disorders. This may be related to the structural and functional brain abnormalities found in SCZ that varied with the degree of IQ discrepancy.Reference Yasuda, Okada and Nemoto32

Cluster analysis with work outcome

The profiles for work outcome were not parallel to those for intellectual variables (Fig. 2(a–c)). Specifically, cluster 2 showed the highest intellectual abilities, although it belonged to the less-functional group. This suggests that a considerable number of patients (n = 220, 29.4%) did not work despite their preserved intellectual function. There are several possible reasons for shorter work hours, including a paucity of support (e.g. work placement) and stigma. Psychological reasons such as inadequate metacognition (e.g. self-stigma), decreased self-efficacy or attenuated motivation may also explain worse work outcomes.

Selective impairment in processing speed

Symbol search performance was worse, by almost two points, than similarities performance in all clusters except cluster 4 in the first cluster analysis and cluster 3 in the second cluster analysis (Figs. 1(d), 2(d); Tables 1, 3). The results suggest a relatively severe impairment in fluid intelligence in patients with mental disorders. Meta-analysesReference Dickinson, Ramsey and Gold33Reference Heinrichs and Zakzanis35 and empirical studiesReference Cholet, Sauvaget, Vanelle, Hommet, Mondon and Mamet11,Reference Van Rheenen and Rossell12,Reference Matsuo, Hori, Ishida, Hiraishi, Ota and Hidese36 , Reference Ojeda, Pena, Schretlen, Sanchez, Aretouli and Elizagarate37 have reported that processing speed, as measured by digit symbol coding, is selectively impaired in SCZ and bipolar disorder. The current observations regarding symbol search performance provide further evidence of impairment in processing speed in people with mental disorders.

Intriguingly, worse processing speed performance was observed even in clusters with a current EIQ in the normal range (Figs. 1(d), 2(d)). This result suggests that patients with spared intellectual abilities (i.e. no or minor decline in intelligence) may be less competent in some domains of fluid intelligence. It is possible that impairment in fluid intelligence, specifically processing speed, may be a more sensitive and effective phenotypical marker for some mental disorders in comparison with crystallised intelligence. In fact, less competent performance on tests of this cognitive domain was reported in recent-onset SCZ patients who otherwise had intact intellectual function.Reference Leeson, Barnes, Harrison, Matheson, Harrison and Mutsatsa38

Diagnostic distributions and the relation to transdiagnostic classification in mental disorders

The two cluster analyses conducted in this study showed that all diagnoses were unevenly represented across the four clusters (Tables 2, 4). To illustrate the relationship between clusters and diagnoses more clearly, the means and 95% confidence intervals for clusters and diagnoses were plotted for three key variables (i.e. current EIQ, IQ discrepancy in the first cluster analysis and work in the second cluster analysis), with healthy control data as a reference (Fig. 3(a–c)). In general, patients with SCZ exhibited lower means and narrower 95% confidence intervals in all variables compared with patients with bipolar disorder, MDD or ASD. The narrower confidence intervals were possibly due to the larger sample size for SCZ. The lower means may reflect the uniqueness of the disorder. Intellectual abilities, in particular, are reported to develop differently in individuals with SCZ compared with healthy controls or individuals with other mental disorders. Large-scale longitudinal studies have shown that the lag in fluid intelligence has already started by the early teens, long before the onset of SCZ; this phenomenon has not been observed in other disorders, including depression.Reference Meier, Caspi and Reichenberg30,Reference Reichenberg, Caspi, Harrington, Houts, Keefe and Murray31 Although all the mental disorders considered in this study were associated with lower intellectual status compared with that of healthy controls (Fig. 3(a, b)), different pathophysiological mechanisms may underlie these observations. Thus, it is thought that although current diagnostic systems (e.g. DSM) may not directly correspond to classifications based on intellectual abilities or functional outcomes, the former (diagnostic systems) may still be loosely associated with the latter (transdiagnostic classifications). Figure 3(d) presents a hypothetical mapping for this relationship. Genetic variations (Fig. 3(d), bottom) have been thought to emerge as disease-specific symptomsReference Gottesman and Gould39 that are behaviourally observable. Although the disease specificity may become less clear in phenotypical psychosocial representations (Fig. 3(d), upper three levels), the diagnostic distinctions may remain to some extent. This mapping could validate transdiagnostic studies as a research paradigm in psychiatry. Moreover, the loose association between diagnoses and psychosocial outcomes noted above also suggests the importance of developing diagnosis-specific strategies to support functional recovery. Specifically, work status is one of the most important functional outcomes in terms of the financial independence of patients, reduction of medical and welfare costs,Reference Lee, Chen and Yang40,Reference Rice41 and therapeutic benefits. For example, work experiences alleviate psychiatric symptoms,Reference Bell, Lysaker and Milstein42 enhance self-esteem and efficacy,Reference McGurk and Mueser43 and provides better insight into work competency.Reference Gould, Sabbag, Durand, Patterson and Harvey44 In particular, it may be important for patients who maintain intellectual abilities but are distributed in the less-functional cluster (e.g. cluster 2 in Fig. 2(e)) to be fully supported so that they can achieve more favourable work outcomes.

Fig. 3 Means and 95% confidence intervals for clusters and diagnoses regarding three key variables: (a) current EIQ, (b) IQ discrepancy from the first cluster analysis and (c) work (hours/week) from the second cluster analysis. (d) Schematic representation of the correspondence between phenotypical distinctions, clinical diagnoses, transdiagnostic classifications and diagnostic distribution for work outcome.

Strengths and limitations

Our study is likely the first to use intellectual abilities and work outcomes to classify a large number of patients with a range of psychiatric condition using a data-driven approach. In particular, a quantified outcome measure of work hours and several aspects of intelligence were employed. Several limitations should be mentioned. First, the severity of symptoms was not controlled for, owing to a lack of common measures across the disorders. Second, some SAA data were obtained in a self-report manner, which could be less objective than collection through interviews. At the time of analyses, the number of patients assigned to self-reporting was not known. Third, the number of SCZ patients was the largest in our sample. As noted above, this diagnosis tended to be distributed in lower bands for intellectual abilities and work outcome. Thus, characteristics of clusters with respect to these variables should be interpreted with caution. Finally, we focused only on quantity of work (e.g. work hours/week) and did not examine qualitative aspects of work such as task complexity, demands and responsibilities. It is possible that transdiagnostic classifications would have appeared differently in our sample if those aspects were taken into account. Future studies should aim to address this issue.

Implications

The current study revealed distinct clusters in patients with SCZ, mood disorders or autism on the basis of intellectual abilities and work outcome. Our data confirmed the importance of diagnostic-specific strategies as well as a transdiagnostic approach to support functional recovery in people with mental disorders.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2022.50.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request to the senior author (R.H., ).

Acknowledgements

We thank the individuals who participated in this study.

Author contributions

R.H. and C.S. designed the study, and TS supervised it. C.S. conducted analyses and H.F. reviewed them. K.O., F.H., H.M, M.F., Y.Y., Y.U. J.T., K.M., A.K., M.Y., Y.O, A.S., E.K., M.K., Y.H., M.N., J.M., K.M., N.H., M.M, T.T, K.N., T.K., and M.S. prepared data and performed interpretation of the results.

Funding

C.S. received funding from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI grant number 20K03433. R.H. received AMED under grant numbers JP21wm0425012, JP21uk1024002, JP21dk0307103; Brain/MINDS & beyond studies grant number JP20dm0307102 from the AMED; a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) JP20H03611; a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Specially Promoted Research JP19H05467; and an Intramural Research Grant (3–1) for Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders of NCNP. T.S. received funding from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI Grant No. 20H03610; AMED Grants No. 21dk0307099 and 21he2202007; Intramural Research Grants for Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders of NCNP (2-3, 3-1); and Japan Health Research Promotion Bureau Grants (2020-B-08, 2021-B-01).

Declaration of interest

The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest.

References

Heinrichs, RW. The primacy of cognition in schizophrenia. Am Psychol 2005; 60(3): 229–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, PD, Bellack, AS. Toward a terminology for functional recovery in schizophrenia: is functional remission a viable concept? Schizophr Bull 2009; 35(2): 300–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, MF. What are the functional consequences of neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia? Am J Psychiatry 1996; 153(3): 321–30.Google Scholar
Sumiyoshi, C, Fujino, H, Yamamori, H, Kudo, N, Azechi, H, Fujimoto, M, et al. Predicting work outcome in patients with schizophrenia: influence of IQ decline. Schizophr Res 2018; 201: 172–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braff, DL, Freedman, R, Schork, NJ, Gottesman, II. Deconstructing schizophrenia: an overview of the use of endophenotypes in order to understand a complex disorder. Schizophr Bull 2007; 33(1): 2132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiser, M, van Os, J, Davidson, M. Time for a shift in focus in schizophrenia: from narrow phenotypes to broad endophenotypes. Br J Psychiatry 2005; 187: 203–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, PD, McClure, MM, Patterson, TL, McGrath, JA, Pulver, AE, Bowie, CR, et al. Impairment in functional capacity as an endophenotype candidate in severe mental illness. Schizophr Bull 2012; 38(6): 1318–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, KS, McGuire, M, Gruenberg, AM, Walsh, D. Schizotypal symptoms and signs in the Roscommon Family Study. Their factor structure and familial relationship with psychotic and affective disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995; 52(4): 296303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, PD, Wingo, AP, Burdick, KE, Baldessarini, RJ. Cognition and disability in bipolar disorder: lessons from schizophrenia research. Bipolar Disord 2010; 12(4): 364–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCleery, A, Ventura, J, Kern, RS, Subotnik, KL, Gretchen-Doorly, D, Green, MF, et al. Cognitive functioning in first-episode schizophrenia: MATRICS consensus cognitive battery (MCCB) profile of Impairment. Schizophr Res 2014; 157(1-3): 33–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cholet, J, Sauvaget, A, Vanelle, JM, Hommet, C, Mondon, K, Mamet, JP, et al. Using the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS) to assess cognitive impairment in older patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord 2014; 16(3): 326–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Rheenen, TE, Rossell, SL. An empirical evaluation of the MATRICS consensus cognitive battery in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord 2014; 16(3): 318–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidman, LJ, Kremen, WS, Koren, D, Faraone, SV, Goldstein, JM, Tsuang, MT. A comparative profile analysis of neuropsychological functioning in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar psychoses. Schizophr Res 2002; 53(1-2): 3144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliver, LD, Moxon-Emre, I, Lai, MC, Grennan, L, Voineskos, AN, Ameis, SH. Social cognitive performance in schizophrenia spectrum disorders compared with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. JAMA Psychiatry 2021; 78(3): 281–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewandowski, KE, Sperry, SH, Cohen, BM, Ongur, D. Cognitive variability in psychotic disorders: a cross-diagnostic cluster analysis. Psychol Med 2014; 44(15): 3239–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuechterlein, KH, Green, MF. MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery Manual. MATRICS Assessment Inc, 2006.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, KE, Baker, JT, McCarthy, JM, Norris, LA, Ongur, D. Reproducibility of cognitive profiles in psychosis using cluster analysis. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2018; 24(4): 382–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J, Rizzo, S, Altshuler, L, Glahn, DC, Miklowitz, DJ, Sugar, CA, et al. Deconstructing bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: a cross-diagnostic cluster analysis of cognitive phenotypes. J Affect Disord 2017; 209: 71–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sumiyoshi, C, Fujino, H, Sumiyoshi, T, et al. Usefulness of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale short form for assessing functional outcomes in patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 2016; 245: 371–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matsuoka, K, Uno, M, Kasai, K, Koyama, K, Kim, Y. Estimation of premorbid IQ in individuals with Alzheimer's disease using Japanese ideographic script (Kanji) compound words: Japanese version of national adult reading test. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2006; 60(3): 332–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, HE. National Adult Reading Test (NART). NFER Nelson, 1982.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, RW, Pinnock, F, Muharib, E, Hartman, L, Goldberg, J, McDermid Vaz, S. Neurocognitive normality in schizophrenia revisited. Schizophr Res Cogn 2015; 2(4): 227–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohi, K, Sumiyoshi, C, Fujino, H, Yasuda, Y, Yamamori, H, Fujimoto, M, et al. A 1.5-year longitudinal study of social activity in patients with schizophrenia. Front Psychiatry 2019; 10: 567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Subotnik, KL, Nuechterlein, KH, Kelly, KA, Kupic, AL, Brosemer, B, Turner, LR. Modified Version of Social Adjustment Scale - Work Outcome. UCLA, 2008.Google Scholar
Fujino, H, Sumiyoshi, C, Sumiyoshi, T, et al. Predicting employment status and subjective quality of life in patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res Cogn 2015; 3: 20–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badcock, JC, Dragovic, M, Waters, FA, Jablensky, A. Dimensions of intelligence in schizophrenia: evidence from patients with preserved, deteriorated and compromised intellect. J Psychiatr Res 2005; 39(1): 11–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kremen, WS, Seidman, LJ, Faraone, SV, Tsuang, MT. IQ decline in cross-sectional studies of schizophrenia: methodology and interpretation. Psychiatry Res 2008; 158(2): 181–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leeson, VC, Sharma, P, Harrison, M, Ron, MA, Barnes, TR, Joyce, EM. IQ trajectory, cognitive reserve, and clinical outcome following a first episode of psychosis: a 3-year longitudinal study. Schizophr Bull 2011; 37(4): 768–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weickert, TW, Goldberg, TE, Gold, JM, Bigelow, LB, Egan, MF, Weinberger, DR. Cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia displaying preserved and compromised intellect. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000; 57(9): 907–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meier, MH, Caspi, A, Reichenberg, A, et al. Neuropsychological decline in schizophrenia from the premorbid to the postonset period: evidence from a population-representative longitudinal study. Am J Psychiatry 2014; 171(1): 91101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenberg, A, Caspi, A, Harrington, H, Houts, R, Keefe, RS, Murray, RM, et al. Static and dynamic cognitive deficits in childhood preceding adult schizophrenia: a 30-year study. Am J Psychiatry 2010; 167(2): 160–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yasuda, Y, Okada, N, Nemoto, K, et al. Brain morphological and functional features in cognitive subgroups of schizophrenia. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2020; 74(3): 191203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, D, Ramsey, ME, Gold, JM. Overlooking the obvious: a meta-analytic comparison of digit symbol coding tasks and other cognitive measures in schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64(5): 532–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenberg, A, Harvey, PD. Neuropsychological impairments in schizophrenia: integration of performance-based and brain imaging findings. Psychol Bull 2007; 133(5): 833–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinrichs, RW, Zakzanis, KK. Neurocognitive deficit in schizophrenia: a quantitative review of the evidence. Neuropsychology 1998; 12(3): 426–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuo, J, Hori, H, Ishida, I, Hiraishi, M, Ota, M, Hidese, S, et al. Performance on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) in Japanese patients with bipolar and major depressive disorders in euthymic and depressed states. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2021; 75(4): 128–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ojeda, N, Pena, J, Schretlen, DJ, Sanchez, P, Aretouli, E, Elizagarate, E, et al. Hierarchical structure of the cognitive processes in schizophrenia: the fundamental role of processing speed. Schizophr Res 2012; 135(1–3): 72–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leeson, VC, Barnes, TR, Harrison, M, Matheson, E, Harrison, I, Mutsatsa, SH, et al. The relationship between IQ, memory, executive function, and processing speed in recent-onset psychosis: 1-year stability and clinical outcome. Schizophr Bull 2010; 36(2): 400–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottesman, II, Gould, TD. The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: etymology and strategic intentions. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160(4): 636–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, IH, Chen, PS, Yang, YK, et al. The functionality and economic costs of outpatients with schizophrenia in Taiwan. Psychiatry Res 2008; 158(3): 306–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, DP. The economic impact of schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry 1999; 60(Suppl 1): 46; discussion 28–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Bell, MD, Lysaker, PH, Milstein, RM. Clinical benefits of paid work activity in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1996; 22(1): 5167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGurk, SR, Mueser, KT. Cognitive functioning, symptoms, and work in supported employment: a review and heuristic model. Schizophr Res 2004; 70(2–3): 147–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, F, Sabbag, S, Durand, D, Patterson, TL, Harvey, PD. Self-assessment of functional ability in schizophrenia: milestone achievement and its relationship to accuracy of self-evaluation. Psychiatry Res 2013; 207(1–2): 1924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Characteristics of clusters

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Cluster profiles and diagnostic distributions across clusters for intelligence variables: (a) current EIQ, (b) premorbid IQ, (c) IQ discrepancy, (d) subtest score and (e) diagnostic distribution from the first cluster analysis. HC, healthy controls.

Figure 2

Table 2 Distribution of diagnoses by cluster

Figure 3

Table 3 Characteristics of clusters

Figure 4

Fig. 2 Cluster profiles and diagnostic distributions across clusters for intelligence variables and work outcome: (a) current EIQ, (b) premorbid IQ, (c) IQ discrepancy, (d) subtest score and (e) diagnostic distribution from the first cluster analysis. HC, healthy controls.

Figure 5

Table 4 Distribution of diagnoses by cluster

Figure 6

Fig. 3 Means and 95% confidence intervals for clusters and diagnoses regarding three key variables: (a) current EIQ, (b) IQ discrepancy from the first cluster analysis and (c) work (hours/week) from the second cluster analysis. (d) Schematic representation of the correspondence between phenotypical distinctions, clinical diagnoses, transdiagnostic classifications and diagnostic distribution for work outcome.

Supplementary material: File

Sumiyoshi et al. supplementary material

Sumiyoshi et al. supplementary material

Download Sumiyoshi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 3.4 MB
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.