4.2 Article

Cognitive profiles of healthy siblings of schizophrenia patients: Application of the cognitive domains of the MATRICS consensus battery

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 452-460

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15622970802314815

Keywords

Cognitive deficit; Endophenotype; the Category Fluency Test

Categories

Funding

  1. Korea Health 21 RD Project
  2. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [A040042, 03-PJ10-PG13-GD01-0002]
  3. IN-SUNG Foundation for Medical Research
  4. National Research Laboratory Program of Korea Science and Engineering Foundation [M10500000126]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Even though a large body of data suggests the presence of various types of cognitive deficits in the unaffected relatives of schizophrenia patients, more study is needed to clarify the comparative sensitivities of specific cognitive measures for relative-control differences. In this study, the authors compared the cognitive profiles of unaffected siblings of schizophrenia patients and those of patients and normal controls, and attempted to identify cognitive markers that might be associated with genetic liability to schizophrenia. Eighty-eight clinically stable schizophrenia patients, 44 healthy patient siblings, and 100 normal controls were evaluated using comprehensive neuropsychological tests. The domain structure of the MATRICS consensus cognitive battery was adopted, and both domain scores and individual test scores were used in the analysis. Performances of the sibling group were intermediate between those of patients and controls on most measures. A significant difference between the sibling and control groups was observed only in the Category Fluency Test. This cognitive deficit might be caused by familial predisposition to schizophrenia and could be a candidate of endophenotype for schizophrenia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available