medicine2 papersavg year 2026quality 4/5moderate evidence

Follow-up Periods

Research gap analysis derived from 2 medicine papers in our local library.

The gap

Most studies have short follow-up periods, failing to assess long-term outcomes in diverse patient populations including psychosis, cancer, and diabetes.

Consensus across the literature

The papers collectively establish the need for longer follow-up periods but leave open specific methodological details.

Research trend

Emerging — attention growing, methods still coalescing.

Supporting evidence — 2 representative gaps

  • Rethinking language, cognition and assessment in psychosis: How bilingualism challenges psychiatry and how natural language processing can help (2026) · doi

    While the paper reviews bilingual cognitive control mechanisms (proactive interference, inhibitory control, dual mechanisms of control) and their neural correlates, it does not address how language-switching demands in bilingual individuals with first-episode psychosis affect cognitive performance trajectories over the 20-year follow-up period documented in longitudinal psychosis studies.

    Keywords: bilingualism language-switching cognitive control first-episode psychosis longitudinal trajectories executive function
  • Prevention of Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder in At-Risk Children: A Feasibility Trial (2026) · doi

    The follow-up period was limited to one year, which is insufficient to assess the long-term effects of the program.

    Keywords: follow period limited year insufficient assess long term effects program

Working on this gap? Publish with us.

Science AI Journal reviews manuscripts in under 15 minutes with 8 specialised AI reviewers calibrated on 23,000+ real peer reviews. Open access, CC BY 4.0.

Related gaps in medicine

Command palette

Jump anywhere, run any action.