4.4 Review

A multivariate perspective on schizotypy and familial association with schizophrenia: A review

期刊

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
卷 31, 期 7, 页码 1169-1182

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.002

关键词

Schizotypy; Schizophrenia; Relatives; Familiality; Social; Endophenotype

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [D43 TW009114] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH063480, R01 MH063480-01, MH-63480] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although generally accepted that schizotypal personality disorder diagnosis is more prevalent among relatives of individuals with schizophrenia and may be associated with genetic liability to schizophrenia, it seems likely that this diagnosis is itself heterogeneous and thus perhaps not as useful in identifying genes that affect schizophrenia risk (i.e. endophenotypes) as it could be. In contrast, symptoms and dimensions of schizotypal personality disorder may be more etiologically homogeneous, and thus more useful in genetic studies. The current review evaluated and consolidated evidence to date regarding specific symptoms and dimensions of schizotypal personality disorder among non-psychotic relatives of schizophrenia patients. Comparisons were made with relatives of affective disorder patients and non-psychiatric controls. Findings indicate strong support for elevation of social-interpersonal schizotypal symptoms among relatives of schizophrenia patients versus other groups along with moderate specificity. Results suggest only a small elevation of cognitive-perceptual and disorganized symptoms in relatives of schizophrenia patients and results for disorganized symptoms were inconsistent across studies. Thus, evidence to date supports further investigation of genetic associations between symptoms of schizotypal personality disorder and schizophrenia, and suggests that social-interpersonal symptoms may be particularly promising in genetic analyses of schizophrenia. (C) 2011 Elsevier 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