4.7 Article

Factors underlying prefrontal and insula structural alterations in smokers

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 42-48

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [ZIADA000470, ZIADA000469] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based upon previous reports of alterations in white matter integrity and gray matter density in smokers, we examined these markers in a large, well-matched sample of smokers and non-smokers. We further investigated the effect of heavy cigarette exposure by using pack-years and the effects of two relatively stable, highly heritable traits in smokers (Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (FIND), a measure of severity of nicotine dependence and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), a stable personality trait related to smoking). Forty-eight nicotine-dependent subjects and 48 matched controls were included in the analyses, with smokers also subdivided into high/low dependence and high/low pack-years smokers. White matter integrity (fractional anisotropy (FA)) and gray matter density (voxel-based morphometry (VBM)) were measured and compared across groups. Gray matter density was lower in left prefrontal cortex (PFC) in high pack-years smokers and was inversely related to pack-years. In contrast, left insular cortex gray matter density was higher in smokers and associated with TAS-20 total score and with difficulty-identifying-feelings factor. Further, the most highly dependent smokers showed lower prefrontal FA, which was negatively correlated with FEND. There was no correlation between pack-years and FIND in our smoker population. These data suggest chronic tobacco use is correlated with prefrontal gray matter damage, while differences in insula gray matter and PFC white matter appear to reflect stable and heritable differences between smokers and non-smokers. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.7
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