4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Cerebellar volumes in pediatric maltreatment-related posttraumatic stress disorder

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 60, 期 7, 页码 697-703

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.04.035

关键词

posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); child maltreatment; generalized anxiety disorder; brain development; cerebellum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The results of previous studies suggest structural brain differences in pediatric maltreatment-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) However, posterior fossa volumes were not examined, despite the consensus that the cerebellum is important in emotional and cognitive development. We investigated the relationship between structural volumes of the cerebellum hemispheres, vermis, brainstem, and clinical variables in pediatric maltreatment-related PTSD. Methods: Fifty-eight psychotropic-naive maltreated children and adolescents with DSM-IV PTSD were compared with two groups of pediatric subjects who bad no DSM-IV criteria A trauma histories: 1) 13 with pediatric generalized anxiety disorder, and 2) 98 healthy non-abused children and adolescents. Subjects underwent a comprehensive psychiatric assessment and an anatomical magnetic resonance image brain scan. Results: Unadjusted means of the left, right, and total cerebellum were smaller in the PTSD group. The group differences remained significant in the left cerebellum, right cerebellum, and total cerebellum in the analyses adjusted for cerebral volume, sociodemographic, and IQ variables. Cerebellar volumes positively correlated with age of onset of the trauma that lead to PTSD and negatively correlated with the duration of the trauma that lead to PTSD. Cerebellar volumes were larger in boys versus girls, but there was no group X gender interaction. There were significant positive correlations between IQ measures and volumetric variables. Conclusions: The results support cerebellar volume differences in maltreated children and adolescents with PTSD. Further studies are warranted.

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