4.5 Article

Normalization of Cortical Gray Matter Deficits in Nonpsychotic Siblings of Patients With Childhood-Onset Schizophrenia

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2011.03.016

关键词

childhood-onset schizophrenia; cortical thickness; endophenotype; gray matter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Cortical gray matter (GM) abnormalities in patients with childhood-onset schizophrenia (COS) progress during adolescence ultimately localizing to prefrontal and temporal cortices by early adult age. A previous study of 52 nonpsychotic siblings of COS probands had significant prefrontal and temporal GM deficits that appeared to normalize by age 17 years. Here we present a replication with nonoverlapping groups of healthy full siblings and healthy controls. Method: Using an automated measure and prospectively acquired anatomical brain magnetic resonance images, we mapped cortical GM thickness in nonpsychotic full siblings (n = 43, 68 scans; ages 5 through 26 years) of patients with COS, contrasting them with age-, gender-, and scan interval matched healthy controls (n = 86, 1.36 scans). The false-discovery rate procedure was used to control for type I errors due to multiple comparisons. Results: As in our previous study, young nonpsychotic siblings (<17 years) showed significant GM deficits in bilateral prefrontal and left temporal cortices and, in addition, smaller deficits in the parietal and right inferior temporal cortices. These deficits in nonpsychotic siblings normalized with age with minimal abnormalities remaining by age 17. Conclusions: Our results support previous findings showing nonpsychotic siblings of COS probands to have early GM deficits that ameliorate with time. At early ages, prefrontal and/or temporal loss may serve as a familial/trait marker for COS. Late adolescence appears to be a critical period for greatest localization of deficits in probands or normalization in nonpsychotic siblings. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2011;50(7):697-704.

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

4.5
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