4.6 Article

Structural brain features signaling trauma, PTSD, or resilience? A systematic exploration

期刊

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
卷 39, 期 10-11, 页码 695-705

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/da.23275

关键词

posttraumatic stress disorder; resilience; structural MRI; trauma

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health
  2. United States -Israel Binational Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study used a data-driven approach to identify structural brain markers of resilience, especially in regions implicated in trauma exposure such as the thalamus and rostral middle frontal gyrus.
Background Studies have searched for neurobiological markers of trauma exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis, and resilience to trauma to identify therapeutic targets for PTSD. Despite some promising results, findings are inconsistent. Aims The present study adopted a data-driven approach to systematically explore whether structural brain markers of trauma, PTSD, or resilience emerge when all are explored. Materials & Methods Differences between clusters in the proportion of PTSD, healthy controls (HC), and trauma-exposed healthy controls (TEHC) served to indicate the presence of PTSD, trauma, and resilience markers, respectively. A total of 129 individuals, including 46 with PTSD, 49 TEHCs, and 34 HCs not exposed to trauma were scanned. Volumes, cortical thickness, and surface areas of interest were obtained from T1 structural MRI and used to identify data-driven clusters. Results Two clusters were identified, differing in the proportion of TEHCs but not of PTSDs or HCs. The cluster with the higher proportion of TEHCs, referred to as the resilience cluster, was characterized by higher volume in brain regions implicated in trauma exposure, especially the thalamus and rostral middle frontal gyrus. Cross-validation established the robustness and consistency of the identified clusters. Discussion & Conclusion Findings support the existence of structural brain markers of resilience.

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

4.6
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