4.5 Article

Risk for affective disorders is associated with greater prefrontal gray matter volumes: A prospective longitudinal study

期刊

NEUROIMAGE-CLINICAL
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 786-793

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.12.011

关键词

Affective disorders; Structural MRI; Anterior cingulate cortex; VBM

资金

  1. Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark
  2. Lundbeck Foundation [R59-A5399]
  3. Novo Nordisk Foundation Interdisciplinary Synergy Program [NNF14OC0011413]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Major depression and bipolar disorders aggregates in families and are linked with a wide range of neurobiological abnormalities including cortical gray matter (GM) alterations. Prospective studies of individuals at familial risk may expose the neural mechanisms underlying risk transmission. Methods: We used voxel based morphometry to investigate changes in regional GM brain volume, over a seven-year period, in 37 initially healthy individuals having a mono-or di-zygotic twin diagnosed with major depression or bipolar disorder (high-risk group; mean age 41.6 yrs.) as compared to 36 individuals with no history of affective disorders in the index twin and first-degree relatives (low-risk group; mean age 38.5 yrs.). Results: Groups did not differ in regional GM volume changes over time. However, independent of time, high-risk twins had significantly greater GM volumes in bilateral dorsal anterior cingulate, inferior frontal gyrus and temporoparietal regions as compared to low-risk twins. Further, individuals who developed an affective disorder at follow-up (n = 12), had relatively the largest GM volumes, both at baseline and follow-up, in the right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and right inferior frontal cortex compared to high-and low-risk twins who remained well at follow-up. Conclusion: This pattern of apparently stable grater regional GM volume may constitute a neural marker of an increased risk for developing an affective disorder in individuals at familial risk.

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

4.5
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