4.5 Article

Biological heterogeneity of obsessive-compulsive disorder: A voxel-based morphometric study based on dimensional assessment

期刊

PSYCHIATRY AND CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCES
卷 69, 期 7, 页码 411-421

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pcn.12269

关键词

insula; magnetic resonance imaging; neuroimaging; obsessive-compulsive disorder; voxel-based morphometry

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25461732, 221S0003, 24591719, 25861017] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimAlthough many neuroimaging studies of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have reported broad abnormalities in gray matter (GM), their results remain inconsistent. One reason for this inconsistency could be the heterogeneity of OCD. In the present study, we aimed to classify alterations in brain anatomy by OCD subtype. MethodsMagnetic resonance imaging examinations of 37 OCD patients and 37 matched healthy controls were conducted using a 3.0-Tesla scanner. In the voxel-based morphometric procedure, preprocessed GM structural images were used to compare the two groups, and multiple regression analysis was used to investigate the correlation between regional GM volume in OCD patients and the OCD symptom dimension type assessed by using the Dimensional Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale. ResultsWe found significant reductions in GM volume in broad areas of the left prefrontal, right orbitofrontal, right parietal, right temporal, and right posterior cingulate cortex in the OCD patients compared to healthy controls. In addition, we found specific negative correlations between symptomatic dimension scores and regional GM volumes, mainly as decreased right cerebellum in aggression/checking' and decreased right insula in contamination/washing'. ConclusionThe pathophysiology of OCD may involve widely distributed neural systems. Moreover, there are distinct correlations among symptomatic dimensions and structural abnormalities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据