BACKGROUND: The utility of an endophenotype depends on its ability to reduce complex disorders into stable, genetically linked phenotypes. P50 and P300 event-related potential (ERP) measures are endophenotype candidates for schizophrenia; however, their abnormalities are broadly observed across neuropsychiatric disorders. This study examined the diagnostic efficiency of P50 and P300 in schizophrenia as compared with healthy and bipolar disorder samples. Supplemental ERP measures and a multivariate classification approach were evaluated as methods to improve specificity. METHODS: Diagnostic classification was first modeled in schizophrenia (SZ = 50) and healthy normal (HN = 50) samples using hierarchical logistic regression with predictors blocked by 4 levels of analysis: (1) P50 suppression, P300 amplitude, and P300 latency; (2) N100 amplitude; (3) evoked spectral power; and (4) P50 and P300 hemispheric asymmetry. The optimal model was cross-validated in a holdout sample (SZ = 34, HN = 31) and tested against a bipolar (BP = 50) sample. RESULTS: P50 and P300 endophenotypes classified SZ from HN with 71% accuracy (sensitivity = .70, specificity = .72) but did not differentiate SZ from BP above chance level. N100 and spectral power measures improved classification accuracy of SZ vs HN to 79% (sensitivity = .78, specificity = .80) and SZ vs BP to 72% (sensitivity = .74, specificity = .70). Cross validation analyses supported the stability of these models. CONCLUSIONS: Although traditional P50 and P300 measures failed to differentiate schizophrenia from bipolar participants, N100 and evoked spectral power measures added unique variance to classification models and improved accuracy to nearly the same level achieved in comparison of schizophrenia to healthy individuals.
BACKGROUND: The utility of an endophenotype depends on its ability to reduce complex disorders into stable, genetically linked phenotypes. P50 and P300 event-related potential (ERP) measures are endophenotype candidates for schizophrenia; however, their abnormalities are broadly observed across neuropsychiatric disorders. This study examined the diagnostic efficiency of P50 and P300 in schizophrenia as compared with healthy and bipolar disorder samples. Supplemental ERP measures and a multivariate classification approach were evaluated as methods to improve specificity. METHODS: Diagnostic classification was first modeled in schizophrenia (SZ = 50) and healthy normal (HN = 50) samples using hierarchical logistic regression with predictors blocked by 4 levels of analysis: (1) P50 suppression, P300 amplitude, and P300 latency; (2) N100 amplitude; (3) evoked spectral power; and (4) P50 and P300 hemispheric asymmetry. The optimal model was cross-validated in a holdout sample (SZ = 34, HN = 31) and tested against a bipolar (BP = 50) sample. RESULTS:P50 and P300 endophenotypes classified SZ from HN with 71% accuracy (sensitivity = .70, specificity = .72) but did not differentiate SZ from BP above chance level. N100 and spectral power measures improved classification accuracy of SZ vs HN to 79% (sensitivity = .78, specificity = .80) and SZ vs BP to 72% (sensitivity = .74, specificity = .70). Cross validation analyses supported the stability of these models. CONCLUSIONS: Although traditional P50 and P300 measures failed to differentiate schizophrenia from bipolar participants, N100 and evoked spectral power measures added unique variance to classification models and improved accuracy to nearly the same level achieved in comparison of schizophrenia to healthy individuals.
Entities:
Keywords:
N100; P300; P50; event-related potential; gamma frequency
Authors: Robert Freedman; Ann Olincy; Randall G Ross; Merilyne C Waldo; Karen E Stevens; Lawrence E Adler; Sherry Leonard Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Sherry Leonard; Judith Gault; Jan Hopkins; Judith Logel; Ruby Vianzon; Margaret Short; Carla Drebing; Ralph Berger; Diana Venn; Pinkhas Sirota; Gary Zerbe; Ann Olincy; Randal G Ross; Lawrence E Adler; Robert Freedman Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2002-12
Authors: T C Neylan; D J Fletcher; M Lenoci; K McCallin; D S Weiss; F B Schoenfeld; C R Marmar; G Fein Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 1999-12-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Robert J Thoma; Faith M Hanlon; Sandra N Moses; J Christopher Edgar; Mingxiong Huang; Michael P Weisend; Jessica Irwin; Andrea Sherwood; Kim Paulson; Juan Bustillo; Lawrence E Adler; Gregory A Miller; Jose M Cañive Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Christine A Carroll; Paul D Kieffaber; Jenifer L Vohs; Brian F O'Donnell; Anantha Shekhar; William P Hetrick Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Junghee Lee; Eric A Reavis; Stephen A Engel; Lori L Altshuler; Mark S Cohen; David C Glahn; Keith H Nuechterlein; Jonathan K Wynn; Michael F Green Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: David B Chorlian; Madhavi Rangaswamy; Niklas Manz; Jacquelyn L Meyers; Sun J Kang; Chella Kamarajan; Ashwini K Pandey; Jen-Chyong Wang; Leah Wetherill; Howard Edenberg; Bernice Porjesz Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2016-11-12 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: David B Chorlian; Madhavi Rangaswamy; Niklas Manz; Chella Kamarajan; Ashwini K Pandey; Howard Edenberg; Samuel Kuperman; Bernice Porjesz Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Lauren E Ethridge; Jordan P Hamm; Godfrey D Pearlson; Carol A Tamminga; John A Sweeney; Matcheri S Keshavan; Brett A Clementz Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2014-05-04 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Steven P Millard; Jane Shofer; David Braff; Monica Calkins; Kristin Cadenhead; Robert Freedman; Michael F Green; Tiffany A Greenwood; Raquel Gur; Ruben Gur; Laura C Lazzeroni; Gregory A Light; Ann Olincy; Keith Nuechterlein; Larry Seidman; Larry Siever; Jeremy Silverman; William S Stone; Joyce Sprock; Catherine A Sugar; Neal R Swerdlow; Ming Tsuang; Bruce Turetsky; Allen Radant; Debby W Tsuang Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Jordan P Hamm; Lauren E Ethridge; John R Shapiro; Godfrey D Pearlson; Carol A Tamminga; John A Sweeney; Matcheri S Keshavan; Gunvant K Thaker; Brett A Clementz Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Victor J Pokorny; Timothy J Lano; Michael-Paul Schallmo; Cheryl A Olman; Scott R Sponheim Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 7.723