4.7 Article

Cerebellar dysfunction in neuroleptic naive schizophrenia patients: Clinical, cognitive, and neuroanatomic correlates of cerebellar neurologic signs

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 55, 期 12, 页码 1146-1153

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.02.020

关键词

cerebellum; neurocognition; magnetic resonance neurology; imaging; neuroleptic naive; schizophrenia; soft signs

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH40856, MH31593, MH43271] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is increasing evidence that, aside from motor coordination, the cerebellum also plays an important role in cognition and psychiatric disorders. Our previous studies support the hypothesis that cerebellar dysfunction may disrupt the cortico-cerebellar-thalamic-cortical circuit and, in turn, lead to cognitive dysmetria in schizophrenia. The goal of this study was to investigate cerebellar dysfunction in schizophrenia by examining the clinical, cognitive, and neuroanatomic correlates of cerebellar neurologic signs in schizophrenia patients. Methods. We compared the prevalence of cerebellar neurologic signs in 155 neuroleptic-naive schizophrenia patients against 155 age- and gender-matched healthy control subjects. Differences in clinical characteristics, standardized neuropsychologic performance, and magnetic resonance imaging brain volumes between patients with and without cerebellar signs were also examined. Results. Patients had significantly higher rates of cerebellar signs than control subjects, with coordination of gait and stance being the most common abnormalities. Patients with lifetime alcohol abuse or dependence were no more likely than those without alcoholism to have cerebellar signs. Presence of cerebellar signs in patients was associated with poorer premorbid adjustment, more severe negative symptoms, Poorer cognitive performance, and smaller cerebellar tissue volumes. Conclusions. These findings lend further support for cerebellar dysfunction in schizophrenia.

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