4.4 Article

Diagnostic performance of increased prolidase activity in schizophrenia

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 613, 期 -, 页码 36-40

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2015.12.036

关键词

Prolidase activity; Diagnostic performance; Biochemical marker; Schizophrenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated whether prolidase activity has a diagnostic test value in schizophrenia and assessed the relation between prolidase activity and sociodemographic-clinical characteristics of patients with schizophrenia. Fifty patients with schizophrenia (diagnosed as schizophrenia according to DSM-V criteria) and 50 healthy volunteers were included in this study. Case and control groups had a similar distribution in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and smoking status. Serum prolidase activity was measured in both groups and was determined to be significantly higher in the patient group (509.706 +/- 41.918) compared to the control group (335.4 +/- 13.6; t = 6.231; p = 0.0001). A cut-off point of 392.65 U/L prolidase was determined for diagnostic measures from the plotted ROC curve. The area under the ROC curve was 1.000, which was significant (p < 0.0001). Higher values were assigned as the disease state. Both positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 100% at the cut-off point of 392.650 U/L. The prolidase levels of the control group were all below the cut-off point. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to age, gender, or BMI (p > 0.05), and no correlation was found between mean prolidase activity and age of onset of the disease, family history, disease duration, number of hospitalizations, subtypes of schizophrenia, PANSS scores or sub scores, CGI-S scores, S-A scale scores, and the antipsychotic treatment (p > 0.05). The results of this study indicate that serum prolidase activity may be a useful diagnostic test for schizophrenia; however, further studies are needed to verify this. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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