4.6 Article

Reduced amygdala volume in newly admitted psychiatric in-patients with unipolar major depression

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
Volume 43, Issue 13, Pages 1112-1117

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.03.007

Keywords

Depression; Amygdala; Quantitative MRI; Plasticity; Cortisol; Antidepressant

Categories

Funding

  1. DFG [De 660/1-1]
  2. Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-WCirttemberg [AZ: 23-7532.22-11/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Structural neuroimaging studies investigating amygdala volumes in patients suffering from major depression have yielded variable results. Discrepant findings across studies may be attributable in part to heterogeneity with respect to antidepressant medication and to lack of adequate control for the effects of total brain volume and age. Here, 24 unipolar depressed in-patients newly admitted to a psychiatric unit and 14 healthy control participants matched for age, gender, and years of education underwent quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) toward the end of a one-week washout period. Saliva cortisol was measured at 08.00 and at 16.00 h in patients during washout. Absolute amygdala volumes were significantly reduced in the patient group (by 13% in left amygdala and 12% in right amygdala). The effect of reduced amygdala volumes in patients remained significant after correction for brain volume (BV) and age. Furthermore, amygdala volume measurements in the patient sample showed a significant inverse relationship to the number of preceding depressive episodes. In patients. severity of disease (baseline HAMD scores) and baseline cortisol levels were not related to amygdala volume. This study of a sample of unmedicated depressed in-patients adds to the small, yet growing, body of evidence linking untreated major depression to reduced amygdala volume. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available