Response – Building on existing knowledge and redefining rather than abandoning the well‐established ‘clinical high risk for psychosis’ prevention paradigm

We appreciate the commentary by Tiffin and Kelleher on our systematic review and meta-analysis. The CHR-P paradigm remains one of the most established preventive approaches in mental health. While concerns have been raised regarding the clinical utility of the CHR-P paradigm, its implementation in specialized services worldwide supports its relevance. These services provide evidence-based interventions, reducing unnecessary antipsychotic use and guiding treatment strategies. Tiffin and Kelleher's critique largely focuses on transition rates and age cutoffs. While we argue that transition rates in adolescents at CHR-P are significant, other outcomes need to be considered. Among others, negative symptoms are clinically significant in adolescents at CHR-P, impairing functioning and long-term outcomes. We think we should refine and improve the CHR-P paradigm rather than simply abandoning it. With advancements in precision medicine, we can improve risk stratification and tailor interventions to better serve individuals at risk. We can also expand the paradigm, so it supports other help-seeking adolescents at risk requiring transdiagnostic, developmentally sensitive interventions to prevent psychosis.