4.2 Article

The relationship between cortical thickness and body mass index differs between women with anorexia nervosa and healthy controls

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH-NEUROIMAGING
Volume 248, Issue -, Pages 105-109

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2016.01.002

Keywords

Anorexia; Cortical thickness; Body mass index; MRI; Neuroimaging; Eating disorders; Body weight

Funding

  1. Compagnia di San Paolo Bank Foundation
  2. Bando Neuroscienze Grant [3929IT/PF2008.2242]
  3. IARPsrl generic Casale Monferrato Resistenza ai trattamenti nei dca [20BW320110719008513915033]
  4. Pat Rutherford, Jr. Endowed Chair in Psychiatry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a severe psychiatric disorder characterized by extreme underweight. Studies conducted with structural MRI found reductions in brain volumes in several areas, but results are mixed. Cortical thickness has shown in other samples specific correlations with BMI in different BMI ranges. In this study, we applied a well validated procedure implemented in Freesurfer software toolkit to investigate cortical thickness in a sample of 21 patients with AN and 18 healthy controls, focusing on group differences and on the relationship between BMI and cortical thickness. Cortical thickness was reduced in patients with AN, but group differences did not survive correction for multiple comparisons. The relationship between BMI and cortical thickness was significantly different in patients with AN compared to controls in the left superior parietal/occipital cortex and left post central cortex. These findings suggest that the relationship between cortical thickness and BMI in patients with AN with less than two years of illness duration significantly differs from that in controls and possible biological mechanisms that may explain this relationship are discussed. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available