4.7 Article

Cortical Thickness and Subcortical Gray Matter Volume in Pediatric Anxiety Disorders

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 42, 期 12, 页码 2423-2433

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/npp.2017.83

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health/National Institutes of Health (NIMH/NIH) [ZIAMH002781]
  2. [01-M-0192]
  3. [00018057]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perturbations in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), hippocampus, and amygdala are implicated in the development of anxiety disorders. However, most structural neuroimaging studies of patients with anxiety disorders utilize adult samples, and the few studies in youths examine small samples, primarily with volume-based measures. This study tested the hypothesis that cortical thickness of PFC regions and gray matter volume of the hippocampus and amygdala differ between pediatric anxiety disorder patients and healthy volunteers (HVs). High-resolution 3-Tesla T1-weighted MRI scans were acquired in 151 youths (75 anxious, 76 HV; ages 8-18). Analyses tested associations of brain structure with anxiety diagnosis and severity across both groups, as well as response to cognitive-behavioral therapy in a subset of 53 patients. Cortical thickness was evaluated both within an a priori PFC mask (small-volume corrected) and using an exploratory whole-brain-corrected (p<0.05) approach. Anxious relative to healthy youths exhibited thicker cortex in the left ventromedial PFC (vmPFC) and left precentral gyrus. Both anxiety diagnosis and symptom severity were associated with smaller right hippocampal volume. In patients, thinner cortex in parietal and occipital cortical regions was associated with worse treatment response. Pediatric anxiety was associated with structural differences in vmPFC and hippocampus, regions implicated in emotional processing and in developmental models of anxiety pathophysiology. Parietal and occipital cortical thickness were related to anxiety treatment response but not baseline anxiety.

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