4.5 Article

Hopelessness, Dissociative Symptoms, and Suicide Risk in Major Depressive Disorder: Clinical and Biological Correlates

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci10080519

关键词

dopamine transporter; suicidality; mood disorders; basal ganglia; DaTSCAN; dissociation

资金

  1. Departments of Excellence 2018-2022 initiative of the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research for the Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences (DNISC) of the University of Chieti-Pescara

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background:Major depressive disorder (MDD) has different clinical presentations and is associated with neurobiological alterations. Hopelessness, anhedonia, and dissociation represent some of the most pervasive psychopathological symptoms that often lead to suicidal thoughts, attempts, and actions. To further research on the concept of depression endophenotypes, this study aimed to assess the possible relationships between hopelessness and other clinical and biological correlates (i.e., striatal dopaminergic dysfunction) in depressed patients.Methods:We recruited 51 subjects with MDD. All subjects underwent(123)I-FP-CIT SPECT to assess striatal dopamine transporter (DAT) availability and a psychometric evaluation using the psychometric scale to assess depressive, anxious, dissociative, and hopelessness symptoms aside from suicidal ideation.Result:An inverse correlation between the hopelessness score and dopamine transporter availability in all basal ganglia was bilaterally found. (Right Putamen,r= -0.445,p< 0.01; Left Putamen,r= -0.454,p< 0.01; Right Caudate,r= -0.398,p< 0.01; Left Caudate,r= -0.467,p< 0.01) Moreover, a positive correlation was also found between hopelessness and dissociative symptoms.Conclusions:These results provide important evidence on the neurobiological and clinical correlates of different psychopathological symptoms of depression with potential implications in terms of devising more effective treatment programs.

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