4.7 Article

Reduced thalamic volume in first-episode non-affective psychosis:: Correlations with clinical variables, symptomatology and cognitive functioning

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 1613-1623

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.048

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Structural studies have inconsistently shown the presence of thalamic volume differences in patients with schizophrenia. However, only a few studies have examined the relation between thalamic structure and clinical and cognitive variables in early phases of the illness. Thalamic volumes in right-handed minimally treated first episode patients with non-affective psychosis (N=61) relative to those of right-handed healthy comparison subjects (N=40) were measured. Thalamic volumes in the right and left hemispheres and total thalamic volume were automatically segmented and analyzed using BRAINS2. Analysis of covariance was used to control for intracranial volume. Clinical symptoms were assessed by total scores of BPRS, SAPS and SANS. The relationship between three cognitive dimensions (verbal learning and memory, speed processing/executive functioning and sustained attention/vigilance), and thalamic volume was evaluated. The impact of the duration of untreated illness, untreated psychosis and prodrome period in thalamic morphometry was also explored. Right, left, and total thalamic volumes of the patients with non-affective psychosis were significantly smaller than those of the healthy subjects. Larger thalamic volumes were associated with an earlier age of onset, a poorer cognitive functioning and a more severe negative symptomatology. Thalamic volumetric differences between patients with non-affective psychosis and healthy controls are already present at early phases of the illness. However, further investigations are warranted to fully clarify the relationship between those structural anomalies and clinical and cognitive outcomes. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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