Schizophrenia, a complex neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by distortions in thinking, perception, emotions, language, sense of self, and behavior, poses enduring challenges to clinicians and researchers alike. It has long been associated with significant functional impairment and societal stigma. Traditional treatments, primarily centered on antipsychotic medications, have offered relief to many but often at the cost of substantial side effects and variable efficacy. The Japanese expert consensus addresses these limitations, proposing nuanced frameworks informed by pharmacodynamics, genetics, and emerging neurobiological understanding.

Central to this consensus is the emphasis on personalized medicine, reflecting a paradigm shift away from one-size-fits-all approaches. The document incorporates cutting-edge pharmacogenomics data that enables clinicians to tailor antipsychotic selection and dosing based on patients’ genetic profiles. This precision medicine approach aims to optimize therapeutic outcomes while minimizing adverse effects, a delicate balance that has eluded psychiatry for decades. It highlights how gene variants impacting dopamine receptor affinity, cytochrome P450 enzyme metabolism, and neurotransmitter transport mechanisms can inform drug choice and dosage.

The consensus meticulously reviews current antipsychotics, segregating them into first, second, and emerging third-generation agents based on receptor target profiles and clinical efficacy. First-generation antipsychotics, while effective at dopamine D2 receptor blockade, are scrutinized for their propensity to cause extrapyramidal symptoms and tardive dyskinesia. The expert panel endorses careful risk-benefit analysis but acknowledges their utility in certain clinical contexts. Second-generation drugs, bearing a broader receptor target range including serotonin 5-HT2A antagonism, are recognized for a comparatively favorable side effect profile, albeit with concerns over metabolic syndrome development.

A particularly exciting advancement detailed is the introduction of novel third-generation antipsychotics that act as dopamine partial agonists, stabilizing dopaminergic signaling rather than outright blocking it. These agents represent a sophisticated approach to modulating neural circuits implicated in schizophrenia, potentially reducing side effects like anhedonia and cognitive dulling. Preliminary clinical trials cited by the experts reveal promising improvements in negative symptoms and cognitive deficits, domains historically resistant to pharmacological intervention.

Moreover, the consensus discusses the integration of adjunctive pharmacotherapies targeting co-morbid conditions and symptom clusters frequently co-occurring in schizophrenia. These include mood stabilizers, anti-anxiety agents, and cognitive enhancers, which when judiciously combined with primary antipsychotics, can address the multifaceted nature of the disorder. Of particular note is the exploration of glutamatergic modulators, reflecting growing recognition of glutamate dysregulation in schizophrenia’s pathophysiology beyond dopamine-centric models.

Neuroinflammation and oxidative stress have also garnered attention in this consensus, with experts reviewing emerging evidence from basic and translational research. Anti-inflammatory agents and antioxidants are investigated for their adjunctive potential, dovetailing with a burgeoning field aiming to tackle neurobiological underpinnings that conventional antipsychotics do not address. While clinical data remains preliminary, the consensus advocates for continued research and cautious clinical experimentation under stringent monitoring.

Crucially, the Japanese consensus emphasizes the importance of early intervention, underscoring that prompt pharmacological and psychosocial treatment during the prodromal phase or first episode of psychosis dramatically improves long-term outcomes. It delineates recommended medication regimens tailored for early-stage patients, balancing efficacy with tolerability to enhance adherence and mitigate relapse rates. This forward-thinking stance aligns with international moves towards proactive, rather than reactive, schizophrenia management.

The document also tackles the persistent challenge of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), a subset of patients unresponsive to conventional medications. Here, clozapine remains the gold standard, yet its profile requires meticulous risk monitoring given hematological and cardiometabolic risks. The consensus calls for novel therapeutic avenues, encouraging incorporation of neuromodulatory techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and investigating experimental pharmacotherapies targeting intracellular signaling pathways implicated in TRS.

Safety and monitoring protocols are deeply integrated into the consensus recommendations. Given the chronicity of schizophrenia and the long-term pharmacotherapy involved, drug-drug interactions, metabolic parameters, and neurological side effects require systematic and ongoing assessment. The panel emphasizes the utility of digital health tools and electronic health records to facilitate vigilant, personalized patient monitoring, which in turn informs dynamic treatment adjustments.

Further, the role of patient education and shared decision-making receives considerable focus, acknowledging that adherence and therapeutic success hinge on collaborative care models. Empowering patients with knowledge about their treatment options, potential side effects, and strategies for lifestyle modifications represent critical components of holistic schizophrenia management espoused in the consensus.

Japan’s unique healthcare system and demographic realities shape several region-specific recommendations, including considerations of genetic polymorphisms affecting drug metabolism prevalent in East Asian populations, as well as culturally attuned psychiatric care frameworks. The consensus thus offers a model not only of scientific rigor but also of cultural competence in psychiatric pharmacology.

Importantly, this consensus does not exist in isolation but is positioned within a global landscape of psychiatric research. The document references international guidelines and collaborates with ongoing multinational studies, reflecting a commitment to integrating insights globally while contributing distinctly Japanese perspectives informed by regional clinical experience and research priorities.

As schizophrenia continues to impose a substantial burden on individuals, families, and healthcare systems worldwide, this Japanese Expert Consensus on pharmacological treatment signifies a beacon of progress. It exemplifies how rigorous scientific collaboration and innovation can translate into actionable clinical pathways, offering renewed hope for patients in achieving symptom remission and improved quality of life.

The 2025 consensus thus serves not only as a clinical guide but as a catalyst for ongoing research, encouraging interdisciplinary efforts spanning molecular biology, pharmacology, neuroimaging, and psychosocial sciences. It stresses that advances in drug development must be paralleled by integrative care models and societal support to truly transform outcomes for those living with schizophrenia.

In conclusion, the Japanese Expert Consensus presents a deeply nuanced, forward-looking blueprint for managing schizophrenia in the 21st century. Its synthesis of current science with clinical pragmatism, cultural specificity, and patient-centered care paradigms makes it a landmark contribution set to influence psychiatry both in Japan and across the globe. As the medical community digests and implements these recommendations, the pursuit of truly effective, safe, and personalized treatments for schizophrenia takes an optimistic leap forward.

Subject of Research: Pharmacological treatment strategies and expert consensus guidelines for schizophrenia, with emphasis on personalized medicine, novel antipsychotics, and adjunctive therapies.

Article Title: Pharmacological Treatment of Schizophrenia: Japanese Expert Consensus 2025

Article References:
Takekita, Y., Tani, H., Kawamata, Y. et al. Pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia: Japanese Expert Consensus 2025. Schizophr (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-026-00770-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

Schizophrenia, a chronic and often debilitating neuropsychiatric disorder, has long been managed primarily through the sustained use of antipsychotic medications, aimed at mitigating psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations, delusions, and thought disorganization. However, these medications are not without significant side effects, ranging from metabolic syndrome and movement disorders to cognitive dulling, which cumulatively impair quality of life and adherence. Thus, the temptation and clinical rationale for discontinuation emerge naturally—especially in patients exhibiting remission or significant symptom stabilization—but such strategies have been fraught with controversy due to relapse risks.

The article systematically reviews longitudinal studies and meta-analyses exploring relapse rates and functional outcomes following antipsychotic discontinuation. Risk stratification emerges as a critical concept, emphasizing that discontinuation is not a binary choice but rather a nuanced clinical decision informed by individual patient factors including duration of remission, psychosocial supports, and biological markers. The authors challenge the prevailing one-size-fits-all approach and advocate for personalized discontinuation protocols rooted in emerging precision medicine frameworks.

From a neurobiological perspective, the authors revisit the dopaminergic hypothesis of schizophrenia, the cornerstone upon which most antipsychotics act by modulating dopamine D2 receptor activity. They highlight recent advances demonstrating that chronic receptor blockade induces compensatory neuroadaptations, such as dopaminergic supersensitivity, which may paradoxically increase relapse risk upon medication withdrawal. This mechanistic insight underscores why abrupt or ill-timed discontinuation might lead to symptom exacerbation, reinforcing the need for carefully calibrated tapering regimens.

Moreover, the authors incorporate insights from neuroimaging studies that evaluate structural and functional brain changes during antipsychotic treatment and discontinuation phases. Advanced MRI and PET scans reveal that ongoing antipsychotic exposure may confer neuroprotective effects by stabilizing aberrant neural circuits, while discontinuation can precipitate neural circuit destabilization, evident in altered connectivity patterns and increased inflammatory markers. These data inject a cautionary tone into the biomedical debate, emphasizing that the neurobiological consequences of stopping treatment extend beyond symptomatology to core brain pathophysiology.

Crucially, the article also discusses the heterogeneity of schizophrenia itself—a disorder with diverse phenotypes and trajectories. Subgroups such as first-episode psychosis patients, those with predominantly negative symptoms, and individuals with treatment-resistant schizophrenia might respond differently to antipsychotic cessation. The authors call for robust biomarkers to delineate these subtypes, enabling tailored discontinuation strategies that optimize both safety and functional recovery.

The psychosocial dimensions of discontinuation are thoroughly examined. Therapeutic alliance, patient education, and social support systems significantly influence outcomes post-discontinuation. The authors argue that well-structured psychoeducation programs and close monitoring during withdrawal phases can mitigate relapse risks, transforming potentially reckless discontinuation into a rational, patient-centered clinical option. Furthermore, integrating psychotherapeutic modalities such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) alongside pharmacologic management emerges as vital in bolstering resilience to relapse.

Ethically, the discourse framed by Zipursky and colleagues touches upon patient autonomy versus clinical paternalism. They emphasize the importance of shared decision-making frameworks that respect patient preferences, weigh the burden of side effects, and transparently communicate the risks and benefits of discontinuation. The article challenges clinicians to balance the traditional risk-averse stance with emerging evidence favoring gradual, monitored discontinuation in select patients.

Statistical modeling within the paper suggests that relapse rates after discontinuation vary widely—ranging from 20% to 70% within one year—highlighting the uncertainty and individualized risk. Importantly, relapse does not universally translate into treatment failure; some patients regain stability with prompt reinitiation of therapy, indicating a window of opportunity for safe experimentation with discontinuation in controlled settings.

The authors advocate prospective, randomized controlled trials specifically designed to evaluate discontinuation protocols, which have been historically underrepresented in psychiatric research. They propose multi-center collaborations deploying standardized outcome measures, real-time biomarker tracking, and comprehensive functional assessments, aiming to generate high-quality evidence that could inform clinical guidelines.

Additionally, Zipursky et al. explore the potential of novel pharmacologic agents and adjunctive therapies that might facilitate safer discontinuation. These include partial dopamine agonists, glutamatergic modulators, and anti-inflammatory drugs, which might mitigate neurobiological vulnerabilities emerging during antipsychotic withdrawal phases, thus reducing relapse likelihood.

Importantly, the societal and economic implications of antipsychotic discontinuation are acknowledged. The chronic use of antipsychotics represents a substantial healthcare burden, and discontinuation strategies, if safely implemented, could reduce long-term costs and enhance patient autonomy and employment outcomes, fueling a broader public health interest in rational discontinuation policies.

The article culminates in a call to rethink entrenched clinical dogmas. Rather than viewing antipsychotic discontinuation as inherently reckless, the authors propose a paradigm shift towards individualized, evidence-based approaches grounded in biology, psychology, and patient-centered ethics. Such a framework promises to reconcile the risks of symptom relapse against the undeniable harms of chronic medication exposure.

In sum, this comprehensive analysis by Zipursky, Agid, and Remington illuminates the intricacies of antipsychotic discontinuation in schizophrenia with a balanced, evidence-rich narrative. It convenes clinical experience, neuroscience, and ethical considerations into a cohesive argument, inviting the psychiatric community to innovate beyond traditional boundaries. The article stands as a seminal contribution, potentially catalyzing a new era where antipsychotic discontinuation is not feared as reckless but embraced as a rational, personalized therapeutic option.

As the field advances, ongoing research and clinical vigilance will remain paramount. Monitoring neurobiological markers, refining relapse prediction algorithms, and integrating holistic care paradigms appear indispensable to safely navigating the precarious path of antipsychotic discontinuation. The question posed—rational or reckless?—may soon find an answer more nuanced and hopeful than previously imagined.

Subject of Research: Antipsychotic discontinuation strategies and outcomes in schizophrenia treatment.

Article Title: Antipsychotic discontinuation in schizophrenia: rational or reckless?

Article References:
Zipursky, R.B., Agid, O., & Remington, G. Antipsychotic discontinuation in schizophrenia: rational or reckless? Schizophr 11, 150 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-025-00698-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-025-00698-8

Antipsychotic medications remain the cornerstone for managing schizophrenia, a chronic and severe mental disorder characterized by hallucinations, delusions, cognitive dysfunction, and social withdrawal. While these drugs are efficacious in reducing acute psychotic symptoms and preventing relapse, their long-term use often presents significant challenges, including metabolic side effects, neurological complications, and diminished patient adherence. These adverse effects compel clinicians and patients alike to consider the possibility of reducing or stopping antipsychotics when feasible, but the decision is fraught with concerns about relapse and the destabilization of mental health.

The special feature by Taylor offers a rigorous synthesis of current evidence on the effects and outcomes of antipsychotic discontinuation, emphasizing the heterogeneity of patient responses. It draws on longitudinal studies, randomized controlled trials, and clinical observations to depict a complex interplay between biological vulnerability, environmental stressors, and medication dynamics. Central to this discourse is the delicate balance that must be maintained between mitigating side effects and avoiding relapse, which often manifests with severe exacerbations of psychosis that can lead to hospitalization or worse.

One of the foremost technical insights highlighted in the feature involves the neurobiological substrates underpinning relapse following antipsychotic withdrawal. Discontinuation can induce neuroadaptive changes, including dopamine receptor supersensitivity and alterations in glutamatergic signaling pathways, which may heighten the risk of psychotic episodes. Taylor discusses how these neurochemical shifts are not uniform, underscoring the need for individualized strategies anchored in pharmacogenomics and neuroimaging biomarkers that can predict vulnerability to relapse.

Importantly, the feature critiques the traditional dogma that lifelong antipsychotic treatment is mandatory for all patients with schizophrenia. It presents emerging data supporting a more personalized approach, where a subset of carefully selected patients, particularly those with first-episode psychosis and prompt symptom resolution, might benefit from gradual dose tapering and even complete cessation under close monitoring. This paradigm shift challenges entrenched clinical guidelines and calls for robust protocols to identify candidates for discontinuation safely.

From a clinical standpoint, the feature delves into optimized tapering regimens designed to minimize rebound psychosis and withdrawal syndromes. These regimens advocate slow, incremental dose reductions with frequent clinical assessments and integration of psychosocial interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy and supported employment. Taylor emphasizes that abrupt cessation not only increases relapse risk but may also induce withdrawal phenomena that mimic psychiatric decompensation, complicating diagnosis and management.

Another critical aspect explored is the role of patient-centered decision-making in antipsychotic discontinuation. Empowering patients through education about medication effects, side effects, and the discontinuation process itself is argued to be essential. Clinicians are encouraged to establish open dialogues that align treatment goals with patient preferences, thereby enhancing adherence and psychological well-being. This approach aligns with contemporary movements advocating for shared decision-making in mental health care.

The feature also evaluates novel pharmacological adjuncts that could facilitate safer discontinuation. Agents targeting glutamate receptors, such as NMDA modulators, and neuroprotective compounds are under investigation for their potential to stabilize neural circuits during withdrawal. While these approaches remain experimental, they herald a future where pharmacotherapy for schizophrenia might transcend dopamine antagonism and incorporate multidimensional modulation of brain networks.

Taylor’s analysis further acknowledges the socioeconomic and systemic barriers complicating discontinuation efforts. In many healthcare settings, inadequate access to comprehensive community mental health services, continuous monitoring, and psychosocial support diminishes the feasibility of discontinuation, exposing patients to higher relapse risks. The article advocates for policy reforms and resource allocation to create structural conditions conducive to individualized antipsychotic management.

Delving into the longitudinal ramifications, the feature addresses how long-term maintenance therapy, while protective against relapse, may paradoxically contribute to progressive brain volume reductions documented in some neuroimaging studies. This neurodegenerative hypothesis remains contentious but adds another layer of complexity to the risk-benefit calculus clinicians must navigate. Taylor urges a reexamination of maintenance strategies in light of accumulating neuroscientific evidence.

Biomarker research, as detailed in the feature, holds promise for revolutionizing antipsychotic discontinuation paradigms. Techniques including functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and electroencephalography (EEG) are being deployed to stratify patient populations based on neurobiological risk profiles. Harnessing machine learning to interpret these data could lead to predictive algorithms that individualize withdrawal protocols, thereby minimizing adverse outcomes.

The article also spotlights the critical importance of early intervention in psychosis and its influence on discontinuation outcomes. Patients who receive comprehensive treatment early in their disease trajectory display improved prognoses and higher chances of successful medication tapering. This underscores the intersection between timely diagnosis, therapeutic intensity, and long-term medication management plans.

Taylor’s special feature does not shy away from addressing the ethical dilemmas engendered by discontinuation. The tension between respecting patient autonomy and ensuring nonmaleficence is palpable, especially when considering the profound consequences of relapse. Clinicians are urged to engage in transparent risk discussions and judicious clinical judgment to navigate these moral complexities.

Concluding, the feature presents a nuanced vision for the future of schizophrenia treatment—one that prioritizes patient-specific considerations, integrates cutting-edge neuroscience, and promotes collaborative care models. By systematically analyzing the intricate variables involved in antipsychotic discontinuation, it sets the stage for transformative shifts in psychiatric practice, aiming ultimately to enhance the lives of individuals coping with this challenging disorder.

In sum, Taylor’s exhaustive special feature on antipsychotic discontinuation in schizophrenia constitutes a landmark contribution to psychiatric literature. Its meticulous exploration of clinical, neurobiological, and psychosocial dimensions offers a comprehensive framework for clinicians and researchers alike, igniting renewed discourse and innovation in the quest for safer, more effective schizophrenia treatments. As this field advances, it holds the promise of diminishing the pervasive burden of medication side effects while safeguarding against the devastating consequences of psychotic relapse.

Subject of Research: Antipsychotic discontinuation and its implications in schizophrenia management.

Article Title: Special feature on antipsychotic discontinuation in schizophrenia.

Article References:
Taylor, D. Special feature on antipsychotic discontinuation in schizophrenia. Schizophr 11, 152 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-025-00696-w

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-025-00696-w

The challenges inherent in reducing antipsychotic doses for individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia are multifaceted. Conventional wisdom often errs on the side of stability through maintained or even increased dosages, primarily due to fears of relapse. However, mounting clinical evidence suggests that many patients could experience meaningful reductions in their medication burden without compromising symptom control. The crux of this delicate balance lies in individualized care plans, rigorous monitoring, and timely adjustments—an area where digital intervention tools demonstrate their utmost potential.

The study by Leucht and Rodolico sheds light on this innovative intersection between psychiatry and technology, emphasizing how online platforms serve as pivotal instruments in the empowerment of both healthcare professionals and patients. These tools range from decision-support algorithms and symptom tracking applications to platforms that facilitate shared decision-making and education. Such technology-based resources provide a data-rich interface that enhances clinicians’ ability to tailor tapering regimens within a safety net of continuous feedback and patient engagement.

Moreover, the deployment of online tools counters several systemic barriers that have long impeded the success of dose reduction protocols. Clinicians frequently face constraints including limited time during consultations, insufficient patient adherence, and a general reticence rooted in fear of deterioration. Technological solutions mitigate these by offering automated reminders, real-time symptom logging, and accessible informational repositories, thereby maintaining a sustained therapeutic alliance outside the clinical environment.

From a pharmacological perspective, antipsychotic medications possess complex receptor affinity profiles, making dose adjustments anything but straightforward. Abrupt or poorly managed tapering can precipitate withdrawal phenomena, rebound psychosis, or other adverse outcomes. Online tools enable sophisticated modeling of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, providing estimations that help clinicians and patients anticipate and circumvent such complications. This precision medicine approach underpins safer, incremental dose reductions and contributes to the literature’s growing consensus on personalized tapering strategies.

The psychological dimension is equally critical. Empowering patients through educational modules embedded within online platforms fosters greater understanding and ownership of their treatment trajectories. This empowerment transforms the dose reduction process from a clinician-driven mandate into a collaborative journey, enhancing motivation and adherence. Consequently, patients report increased satisfaction and a sense of agency, both of which are crucial drivers of positive long-term outcomes.

Importantly, online tools also facilitate systematic data collection across diverse populations and geographies, enabling researchers to aggregate real-world evidence on dose reduction practices. This influx of continuous, patient-centered data supports iterative refinement of clinical guidelines and fosters a learning healthcare system where best practices evolve dynamically. Such an approach transcends traditional episodic research paradigms, offering the potential to accelerate progress in schizophrenia management at an unprecedented scale.

In practice, the integration of online tools within psychiatric services must navigate issues surrounding digital literacy, data privacy, and equitable access. Although the promise is vast, these challenges necessitate ongoing attention to ensure that digital empowerment does not exacerbate existing health disparities. Appropriate training for clinicians, user-friendly interfaces, and robust cybersecurity protocols comprise critical factors in realizing the full potential of technology-enhanced care.

Clinicians have started to embrace a hybrid model where in-person evaluations are complemented by remotely facilitated monitoring, substantially increasing the frequency and granularity of patient assessments. This synchronous-asynchronous workflow helps detect early warning signs of decompensation during dose tapering phases and allows for prompt therapeutic interventions. The resultant safety net alleviates much of the traditional hesitation around reducing antipsychotic doses, contributing to a broader cultural shift in psychiatric practice.

Concurrently, these online tools have catalyzed important conversations about the ethical dimensions of dose reduction. Transparency around risks, benefits, and uncertainties is crucial in shared decision-making, and digital platforms serve as vehicles for delivering comprehensible information tailored to individual cognitive and emotional profiles. This dynamic supports nuanced consent processes and respect for patient autonomy, increasingly recognized as foundational principles in psychiatry.

This technological advancement dovetails with parallel efforts in biomarker development, where physiological and neuroimaging indicators might one day further inform dose reduction strategies. Future iterations of online tools are anticipated to integrate such biomarker data seamlessly, synthesizing multidimensional inputs for a holistic appraisal of treatment tapering readiness and risk. This evolution heralds a future where artificial intelligence and machine learning drive precision psychiatry with profound implications.

The impact of these innovations is already manifesting in improved clinical outcomes, reduced medication side effects, and enhanced patient quality of life. By encouraging gradual, evidence-informed tapering, clinicians can minimize the cumulative burden of antipsychotics—such as metabolic syndrome, extrapyramidal symptoms, and cognitive dulling—while maintaining robust symptom control. The online tools’ role in operationalizing this fine balance cannot be overstated and represents a transformative step in schizophrenia care.

The influential work by Leucht and Rodolico underscores that empowerment is not merely a slogan but a measurable construct achieved through thoughtful integration of technology, clinical expertise, and patient participation. Their contribution provides a blueprint for harnessing the digital revolution to tackle one of psychiatry’s most persistent dilemmas: how to safely and effectively reduce unnecessary antipsychotic exposure while preserving mental health stability.

Ascending from research to real-world clinical adoption, these online tools have the capacity to reframe schizophrenia treatment paradigms internationally. By democratizing access to cutting-edge dose reduction protocols and facilitating robust monitoring, they encourage a shift from passive medication maintenance to active, collaborative care models. This evolution aligns strongly with broader health system goals prioritizing person-centered, value-based care.

Looking ahead, interdisciplinary collaboration will be paramount in refining these tools’ functionalities, integrating nuanced clinical heuristics, and addressing sociocultural determinants of health. Sustained investment in digital infrastructure, clinician training, and patient feedback mechanisms will bolster the resilience and adaptability of these platforms amid the rapidly changing landscape of psychiatric care. Ultimately, empowered clinicians and patients, armed with precise, accessible online instruments, stand poised to transform the antipsychotic dose reduction frontier decisively.

Subject of Research: Empowering clinicians and patients in antipsychotic dose reduction for schizophrenia through the use of online tools.

Article Title: Empowering clinicians and patients in antipsychotic dose reduction for schizophrenia: the role of online tools.

Article References:
Leucht, S., Rodolico, A. Empowering clinicians and patients in antipsychotic dose reduction for schizophrenia: the role of online tools. Schizophr 11, 153 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-025-00699-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41537-025-00699-7