4.7 Article

Reduced Thickness of Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex in Smokers

期刊

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 68, 期 11, 页码 1061-1065

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.08.004

关键词

Addiction; cortical thickness; orbitofrontal cortex; smoking; nicotine; substance dependence

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [BMBF 01GS08159]
  2. AstraZeneca
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. Janssen-Cilag
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Structural deficiencies within the prefrontal cortex might be related to drug-taking behavior that prevails in smokers. Cortical thickness has been found to be a structural modulator of cerebral function and cognition and a subtle correlate of mental disorders. However, to date an analysis of cortical thickness in smokers compared with never-smokers has not been undertaken. Methods: We acquired high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging scans from 22 smokers and 21 never-smokers and used FreeSurfer to model the gray-white and pial surfaces for each individual cortex to compute the distance between these surfaces to obtain a measure of cortical thickness. The main cortical folds were aligned across individuals with FreeSurfer's surface-based averaging technique to compare whole brain differences in cortical thickness between smokers and never-smokers. Results: Relative to never-smokers, smokers showed greater cortical thinning in the left medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC). Cortical thickness measures extracted from mOFC correlated negatively with the amount of cigarettes consumed/day and the magnitude of lifetime exposure to tobacco smoke. Conclusions: The brains of smokers are structurally different from those of never-smokers in a dose-dependent manner. The cortical thinning in mOFC in smokers relative to never-smokers might imply dysfunctions of the brain's reward, impulse control, and decision-making circuits. Related behavioral correlates are suggested to be relevant for smoking initiation and maintenance.

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