T E Van Rheenen1, K E Lewandowski2, E J Tan3, L H Ospina4, D Ongur2, E Neill3, C Gurvich5, C Pantelis1, A K Malhotra6, S L Rossell3, K E Burdick4. 1. Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre,Department of Psychiatry,University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health,Carlton,VIC,Australia. 2. Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder Program,McLean Hospital,Belmont, MA,USA. 3. Brain and Psychological Sciences Research Centre,Faculty of Health, Arts and Design,School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University,Hawthorn,VIC,Australia. 4. Icahn School of Medicine,Mount Sinai, NY,USA. 5. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry Laboratory,Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, The Alfred Hospital and Central Clinical School, Monash University,Melbourne,VIC,Australia. 6. Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine,Hempstead, NY,USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current group-average analysis suggests quantitative but not qualitative cognitive differences between schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar disorder (BD). There is increasing recognition that cognitive within-group heterogeneity exists in both disorders, but it remains unclear as to whether between-group comparisons of performance in cognitive subgroups emerging from within each of these nosological categories uphold group-average findings. We addressed this by identifying cognitive subgroups in large samples of SZ and BD patients independently, and comparing their cognitive profiles. The utility of a cross-diagnostic clustering approach to understanding cognitive heterogeneity in these patients was also explored. METHOD: Hierarchical clustering analyses were conducted using cognitive data from 1541 participants (SZ n = 564, BD n = 402, healthy control n = 575). RESULTS: Three qualitatively and quantitatively similar clusters emerged within each clinical group: a severely impaired cluster, a mild-moderately impaired cluster and a relatively intact cognitive cluster. A cross-diagnostic clustering solution also resulted in three subgroups and was superior in reducing cognitive heterogeneity compared with disorder clustering independently. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative SZ-BD cognitive differences commonly seen using group averages did not hold when cognitive heterogeneity was factored into our sample. Members of each corresponding subgroup, irrespective of diagnosis, might be manifesting the outcome of differences in shared cognitive risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Current group-average analysis suggests quantitative but not qualitative cognitive differences between schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar disorder (BD). There is increasing recognition that cognitive within-group heterogeneity exists in both disorders, but it remains unclear as to whether between-group comparisons of performance in cognitive subgroups emerging from within each of these nosological categories uphold group-average findings. We addressed this by identifying cognitive subgroups in large samples of SZ and BD patients independently, and comparing their cognitive profiles. The utility of a cross-diagnostic clustering approach to understanding cognitive heterogeneity in these patients was also explored. METHOD: Hierarchical clustering analyses were conducted using cognitive data from 1541 participants (SZ n = 564, BD n = 402, healthy control n = 575). RESULTS: Three qualitatively and quantitatively similar clusters emerged within each clinical group: a severely impaired cluster, a mild-moderately impaired cluster and a relatively intact cognitive cluster. A cross-diagnostic clustering solution also resulted in three subgroups and was superior in reducing cognitive heterogeneity compared with disorder clustering independently. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative SZ-BD cognitive differences commonly seen using group averages did not hold when cognitive heterogeneity was factored into our sample. Members of each corresponding subgroup, irrespective of diagnosis, might be manifesting the outcome of differences in shared cognitive risk factors.
Authors: Dag Alnæs; Tobias Kaufmann; Dennis van der Meer; Aldo Córdova-Palomera; Jaroslav Rokicki; Torgeir Moberget; Francesco Bettella; Ingrid Agartz; Deanna M Barch; Alessandro Bertolino; Christine L Brandt; Simon Cervenka; Srdjan Djurovic; Nhat Trung Doan; Sarah Eisenacher; Helena Fatouros-Bergman; Lena Flyckt; Annabella Di Giorgio; Beathe Haatveit; Erik G Jönsson; Peter Kirsch; Martina J Lund; Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg; Giulio Pergola; Emanuel Schwarz; Olav B Smeland; Tiziana Quarto; Mathias Zink; Ole A Andreassen; Lars T Westlye Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: M Russo; T E Van Rheenen; M Shanahan; K Mahon; M M Perez-Rodriguez; A Cuesta-Diaz; E Larsen; A K Malhotra; K E Burdick Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Kathryn E Lewandowski; Julie M McCarthy; Dost Öngür; Lesley A Norris; Geoffrey Z Liu; Richard J Juelich; Justin T Baker Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Eva Velthorst; Eric C Meyer; Anthony J Giuliano; Jean Addington; Kristin S Cadenhead; Tyrone D Cannon; Barbara A Cornblatt; Thomas H McGlashan; Diana O Perkins; Ming T Tsuang; Elaine F Walker; Scott W Woods; Carrie E Bearden; Larry J Seidman Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Tamsyn E Van Rheenen; Vanessa Cropley; Andrew Zalesky; Chad Bousman; Ruth Wells; Jason Bruggemann; Suresh Sundram; Danielle Weinberg; Roshel K Lenroot; Avril Pereira; Cynthia Shannon Weickert; Thomas W Weickert; Christos Pantelis Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Tamsyn E Van Rheenen; Kathryn E Lewandowski; Jessica M Lipschitz; Katherine E Burdick Journal: CNS Spectr Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 3.790
Authors: Alexander W Charney; Eli A Stahl; Elaine K Green; Chia-Yen Chen; Jennifer L Moran; Kimberly Chambert; Richard A Belliveau; Liz Forty; Katherine Gordon-Smith; Phil H Lee; Evelyn J Bromet; Peter F Buckley; Michael A Escamilla; Ayman H Fanous; Laura J Fochtmann; Douglas S Lehrer; Dolores Malaspina; Stephen R Marder; Christopher P Morley; Humberto Nicolini; Diana O Perkins; Jeffrey J Rakofsky; Mark H Rapaport; Helena Medeiros; Janet L Sobell; Lena Backlund; Sarah E Bergen; Anders Juréus; Martin Schalling; Paul Lichtenstein; James A Knowles; Katherine E Burdick; Ian Jones; Lisa A Jones; Christina M Hultman; Roy Perlis; Shaun M Purcell; Steven A McCarroll; Carlos N Pato; Michele T Pato; Ariana Di Florio; Nick Craddock; Mikael Landén; Jordan W Smoller; Douglas M Ruderfer; Pamela Sklar Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2018-12-20 Impact factor: 13.382