OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric profiles of two at-risk groups [Huntington's disease (HD) gene carriers and non-carriers] were compared by means of a computerized battery and a structured interview. METHOD: To avoid confounding, only subjects who were free from neurological and cognitive deficits (neurologically asymptomatic) were included in the study. To avoid evaluation biases, all subjects were seen before the genetic testing was undertaken. RESULTS: Gene carriers had significantly worse recognition memory and scored higher in measures of irritability than controls. The groups also differed in terms of the factor structure of their psychiatric symptoms. None of the subjects qualified for a psychiatric diagnosis at the time of assessment. CONCLUSION: The groups differed with respect to their profile of psychiatric symptoms. It is hypothesized that these differences are the expression of different mechanisms, i.e. that cognitive deficits relate more to genetic factors and neurotic complaints more to being brought up in a disturbed family background. Issues concerning instrument sensitivity, selection bias and the advantage of seriatim assessments are discussed.
OBJECTIVE:Psychiatric profiles of two at-risk groups [Huntington's disease (HD) gene carriers and non-carriers] were compared by means of a computerized battery and a structured interview. METHOD: To avoid confounding, only subjects who were free from neurological and cognitive deficits (neurologically asymptomatic) were included in the study. To avoid evaluation biases, all subjects were seen before the genetic testing was undertaken. RESULTS: Gene carriers had significantly worse recognition memory and scored higher in measures of irritability than controls. The groups also differed in terms of the factor structure of their psychiatric symptoms. None of the subjects qualified for a psychiatric diagnosis at the time of assessment. CONCLUSION: The groups differed with respect to their profile of psychiatric symptoms. It is hypothesized that these differences are the expression of different mechanisms, i.e. that cognitive deficits relate more to genetic factors and neurotic complaints more to being brought up in a disturbed family background. Issues concerning instrument sensitivity, selection bias and the advantage of seriatim assessments are discussed.
Authors: Jessica Raper; Steven Bosinger; Zachary Johnson; Gregory Tharp; Sean P Moran; Anthony W S Chan Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Siera Goodnight; Anna L Kratz; Julie C Stout; Michael K McCormack; Jane S Paulsen; Nicholas R Boileau; David Cella; Rebecca E Ready Journal: J Huntingtons Dis Date: 2019
Authors: Roy H Perlis; Jordan W Smoller; Jayalakshmi Mysore; Mei Sun; Tammy Gillis; Shaun Purcell; Marcella Rietschel; Markus M Nöthen; Stephanie Witt; Wolfgang Maier; Dan V Iosifescu; Patrick Sullivan; A John Rush; Maurizio Fava; Hans Breiter; Marcy Macdonald; James Gusella Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Camille L Julien; Jennifer C Thompson; Sue Wild; Pamela Yardumian; Julie S Snowden; Gwen Turner; David Craufurd Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2006-12-18 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Rachael I Scahill; Nicola Z Hobbs; Miranda J Say; Natalie Bechtel; Susie M D Henley; Harpreet Hyare; Douglas R Langbehn; Rebecca Jones; Blair R Leavitt; Raymund A C Roos; Alexandra Durr; Hans Johnson; Stéphane Lehéricy; David Craufurd; Christopher Kennard; Stephen L Hicks; Julie C Stout; Ralf Reilmann; Sarah J Tabrizi Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Damian M Cummings; Véronique M André; Besim O Uzgil; Steven M Gee; Yvette E Fisher; Carlos Cepeda; Michael S Levine Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 6.167