4.7 Article

Neocortical gray matter volume in first-episode schizophrenia and first-episode affective psychosis: A cross-sectional and longitudinal MRI study

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 62, 期 7, 页码 773-783

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.03.030

关键词

antipsychotics; bipolar disorder; longitudinal volume change; mood stabilizer; neocortex; schizophrenia

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH 40799, K02 MH 01110, R01 MH058704, R01 MH 50747, K02 MH001110-10, R01 MH58704, R01 MH040799] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Overall neocortical gray matter (NCGM) volume has not been studied in first-episode schizophrenia (FESZ) at first hospitalization or longitudinally to evaluate progression, nor has it been compared with first-episode affective psychosis (FEAFF). Methods: Expectation-maximization/atlas-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tissue segmentation into gray matter, white matter (WM), or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) at first hospitalization of 29 FESZ and 34 FEAFF, plus 36 matched healthy control subjects (HC), and, longitudinally similar to 1.5 years later, of 17 FESZ, 21 FEAFF, and 26 HC was done. Manual editing separated NCGM and its lobar parcellation, cerebral WM (CWM), lateral ventricles (LV), and sulcal CSF (SCSF). Results: At first hospitalization, FESZ and FEAFF showed smaller NCGM volumes and larger SCSF and LV than HC. Longitudinally, FESZ showed NCGM volume reduction (-1.7%), localized to frontal (-2.4%) and temporal (-2.6%) regions, and enlargement of SCSF (7.2%) and LV (10.4%). Poorer outcome was associated with these LV and NCGM changes. FEAFF showed longitudinal NCGM volume increases (3.6%) associated with lithium or valproate administration but without clinical correlations and regional localization. Conclusions: Longitudinal NCGM volume reduction and CSF component enlargement in FESZ are compatible with post-onset progression. Longitudinal NCGM volume increase in FEAFF may reflect neurotrophic effects of mood stabilizers.

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