Hüseyin Güleç1, Semra Ulusoy Kaymak2, Mustafa Bilici1, Ali Gangal3, Temel Kayikç Ioğlu3, Ahmet Sari4, Üner Tan5. 1. Karadeniz Technical University Medical Faculty, Department of Psychiatry Clinic, Trabzon, Turkey; Erenköy Education and Research Hospital, Department of Psychiatry Clinic, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Ankara Oncology Education and Research Hospital, Department of Psychiatry Clinic, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Karadeniz Technical University Faculty of Engeneering, Electric Electronics Engeneering, Trabzon, Turkey. 4. Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Radiology, Trabzon, Turkey. 5. Çukurova University Medical Faculty, Department of Physiology, Adana, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A century ago, Kraepelin stated that the distinctive feature of schizophrenia was progressive deterioration. Kraepelin criteria for schizophrenia are: (1) continuous hospitalization or complete dependence on others for obtaining basic necessities of life, (2) unemployment and (3) no remission for the past five years. We aimed to determine the clinical appearance and structural biological features of Kraepelinian schizophrenia. METHODS: The sample consisted of 17 Kraepelinian patients, 30 non-Kraepelinian schizophrenic patients and 43 healthy controls. The Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scales (PANSS) were used for clinical assessment. The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and the Verbal Fluency and Color Trail Test (CTT) were included in the cognitive battery. Brain magnetic resonance imaging and dermatoglyphic measurements were performed for structural features. RESULT: Duration of illness, hospitalization, suicide attempts, admission type, presence of a stressor and treatment choice were similar between the two patient groups. Treatment resistance and family history of schizophrenia were more common in Kraepelinian patients. PANSS and CGI subscales scores were also higher in this group. Only the category fluency and CTT-I were different in Kraepelinian patients in comparison to the other patient group. Structural findings were not different between the three groups. CONCLUSION: Category fluency, which was lower in Kraepelinian patients, is an important marker of a degenerative process. The collection of severe clinical symptoms, family history of psychiatric illness and nonresponse to treatment in this particular group of patients points to the need to conduct further studies including cluster analysis in methodology.
INTRODUCTION: A century ago, Kraepelin stated that the distinctive feature of schizophrenia was progressive deterioration. Kraepelin criteria for schizophrenia are: (1) continuous hospitalization or complete dependence on others for obtaining basic necessities of life, (2) unemployment and (3) no remission for the past five years. We aimed to determine the clinical appearance and structural biological features of Kraepelinian schizophrenia. METHODS: The sample consisted of 17 Kraepelinian patients, 30 non-Kraepelinian schizophrenicpatients and 43 healthy controls. The Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scales (PANSS) were used for clinical assessment. The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and the Verbal Fluency and Color Trail Test (CTT) were included in the cognitive battery. Brain magnetic resonance imaging and dermatoglyphic measurements were performed for structural features. RESULT: Duration of illness, hospitalization, suicide attempts, admission type, presence of a stressor and treatment choice were similar between the two patient groups. Treatment resistance and family history of schizophrenia were more common in Kraepelinian patients. PANSS and CGI subscales scores were also higher in this group. Only the category fluency and CTT-I were different in Kraepelinian patients in comparison to the other patient group. Structural findings were not different between the three groups. CONCLUSION: Category fluency, which was lower in Kraepelinian patients, is an important marker of a degenerative process. The collection of severe clinical symptoms, family history of psychiatric illness and nonresponse to treatment in this particular group of patients points to the need to conduct further studies including cluster analysis in methodology.
Entities:
Keywords:
Kraepelin; cognitive functions; dermatogliphic; magnetic resonance imaging; schizophrenia
Authors: C J van Oel; W F Baaré; H E Hulshoff Pol; J Haag; J Balazs; A Dingemans; R S Kahn; M M Sitskoorn Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2001-12-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: P Fearon; A Lane; M Airie; J Scannell; A McGowan; M Byrne; M Cannon; D Cotter; P Murphy; B Cassidy; J Waddington; C Larkin; E O'Callaghan Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2001-07-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Ridha Joober; Guy A Rouleau; Samarthji Lal; David Bloom; Pierre Lalonde; Alain Labelle; Chawki Benkelfat Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Serge A Mitelman; Adam M Brickman; Lina Shihabuddin; Randall Newmark; King Wai Chu; Monte S Buchsbaum Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2004-12-08 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: M Albus; W Hubmann; C Ehrenberg; U Forcht; F Mohr; N Sobizack; C Wahlheim; S Hecht Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 1996 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Serge A Mitelman; Yuliya Torosjan; Randall E Newmark; Jason S Schneiderman; King-Wai Chu; Adam M Brickman; M Mehmet Haznedar; Erin A Hazlett; Cheuk Y Tang; Lina Shihabuddin; Monte S Buchsbaum Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 4.939