4.7 Article

Retinal changes in bipolar disorder as an endophenotype candidate: Comparison of OCT-detected retinal changes in patients, siblings, and healthy controls

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 313, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114606

关键词

Bipolar disorder; Endophenotype; OCT; Retina; Single-layer analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated retinal changes in patients with bipolar disorder and their healthy siblings using optical coherence tomography (OCT), and explored these findings as potential endophenotype candidates. The results showed that GCL+IPL thicknesses were significantly correlated with functionality of patients and severity of the disorder.
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a non-invasive imaging technique that detects retinal changes reflecting neurodegeneration. In recent studies in patients with bipolar disorder (BD) abnormal OCT findings have shown. In this study, we aimed to investigate the retinal changes in BD patients and their healthy siblings (HS) by comparing them with the healthy control (HC) group and to explore these findings as potential endophenotype candidates. 31 patients with BD, 31 age-matched HSs and 46 HCs were included and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL), ganglion cell layer (GCL)+inner plexiform layer (IPL) and macular volume (MV) thicknesses were measured by OCT. The relationship between disease severity parameters, functionality and OCT measurements in the patient group was also investigated. In results, the mean RNFL thicknesses did not differ between groups. All GCL+IPL thicknesses were found to be significantly lower in the patient and sibling groups compared to the HCs. GCL+IPL thicknesses were significantly correlated with functionality of patients and severity of the disorder. Our findings suggest that analysis of retinal layers with OCT may be a beneficial indicator to show neuronal changes in BD and GCL+IPL may be a suitable endophenotype candidate.

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