Denecke Saskia, Strakeljahn Felix, Bott Antonia, Lincoln Tania M
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Commun Psychol. 2025 Sep 29;3(1):138. doi: 10.1038/s44271-025-00311-9.
Aetiological models of delusions propose a broad range of predictors. The extent to which these predictors explain variance in persecutory beliefs across the continuum requires systematic investigation. As part of a previous review, 51 aetiological models of delusions were identified in a systematic literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases. Omitting repetitions, 66 unique postulated predictors of delusions and persecutory delusions were extracted from these models, of which 55 met our inclusion criteria and were assessed in a cross-sectional online sample stratified by delusion severity (N = 336) using self-report and behavioural measures. Utilising machine learning (i.e., random forests with nested cross-validation), we investigated the extent to which the model-based predictors explain self-reported persecutory beliefs, identified the most relevant predictors, and investigated their specificity in explaining persecutory beliefs as opposed to delusional beliefs or psychopathological symptoms in general. The machine learning model explained 31% of the variance in persecutory beliefs, 47% of delusions in general, and 77% of general psychopathology. The ten predictors with the most influence on predicting persecutory beliefs included negative beliefs about mistrust, cognitive fusion, ostracism, threat anticipation, generalised negative other beliefs, trust, aberrant salience, hallucinations, stress, and emotion regulation difficulties. The limited explanatory power of the proposed predictors raises questions about the validity of existing models and suggests that crucial predictors specific to persecutory delusions may be missing. Our findings highlight the importance of investigating, refining, and cross-validating theoretical aetiological models to improve our understanding of the aetiology of delusions.
妄想的病因模型提出了广泛的预测因素。这些预测因素在多大程度上解释了整个连续体中被害妄想信念的差异,需要进行系统研究。作为之前一项综述的一部分,通过使用PubMed、科学网和科学Direct数据库进行系统的文献检索,确定了51种妄想病因模型。剔除重复项后,从这些模型中提取了66个独特的妄想和被害妄想的假定预测因素,其中55个符合我们的纳入标准,并在一个按妄想严重程度分层的横断面在线样本(N = 336)中,使用自我报告和行为测量方法进行了评估。利用机器学习(即带有嵌套交叉验证的随机森林),我们研究了基于模型的预测因素在多大程度上解释了自我报告的被害妄想信念,确定了最相关的预测因素,并研究了它们在解释被害妄想信念方面相对于一般妄想信念或精神病理症状的特异性。机器学习模型解释了被害妄想信念中31%的变异、一般妄想中47%的变异以及一般精神病理学中77%的变异。对预测被害妄想信念影响最大的十个预测因素包括对不信任的消极信念、认知融合、排斥、威胁预期、对他人的普遍消极信念、信任、异常显著性、幻觉、压力和情绪调节困难。所提出的预测因素的有限解释力对现有模型的有效性提出了质疑,并表明可能缺少特定于被害妄想的关键预测因素。我们的研究结果强调了研究、完善和交叉验证理论病因模型以增进我们对妄想病因理解的重要性。