| Literature DB >> 31183775 |
Stijn Michielse1, Iris Lange2, Jindra Bakker2,3, Liesbet Goossens2, Simone Verhagen2, Marieke Wichers4, Ritsaert Lieverse2, Koen Schruers2,5, Therese van Amelsvoort2, Jim van Os2,6,7, Machteld Marcelis2,8.
Abstract
Group comparisons of individuals with psychotic disorder and controls have shown alterations in white matter microstructure. Whether white matter microstructure and network connectivity is altered in adolescents with subclinical psychotic experiences (PE) at the lowest end of the psychosis severity spectrum is less clear. DWI scan were acquired in 48 individuals with PE and 43 healthy controls (HC). Traditional tensor-derived indices: Fractional Anisotropy, Axial Diffusivity, Mean Diffusivity and Radial Diffusivity, as well as network connectivity measures (global/local efficiency and clustering coefficient) were compared between the groups. Subclinical psychopathology was assessed with the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) questionnaires and, in order to capture momentary subclinical expression of psychosis, the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) questionnaires. Within the PE-group, interactions between subclinical (momentary) symptoms and brain regions in the model of tensor-derived indices and network connectivity measures were investigated in a hypothesis-generating fashion. Whole brain analyses showed no group differences in tensor-derived indices and network connectivity measures. In the PE-group, a higher positive symptom distress score was associated with both higher local efficiency and clustering coefficient in the right middle temporal pole. The findings indicate absence of microstructural white matter differences between emerging adults with subclinical PE and controls. In the PE-group, attenuated symptoms were positively associated with network efficiency/cohesion, which requires replication and may indicate network alterations in emerging mild psychopathology.Entities:
Keywords: Emerging adults; Network connectivity; Psychotic experiences; White matter
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31183775 PMCID: PMC7572337 DOI: 10.1007/s11682-019-00129-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Imaging Behav ISSN: 1931-7557 Impact factor: 3.978
Participant characteristics
| HC ( | PE ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (mean (sd)) | 21.81 (1.69) | 21.31 (2.48) |
| Sex female (%) | 35 (81.4) | 37 (77.1) |
| Educational level: | ||
| Lower general education (%) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.1) |
| Vocational education (%) | 1 (2.3) | 2 (4.2) |
| High school (%) | 2 (4.7) | 5 (10.4) |
| Higher education (Bachelor) (%) | 29 (67.4) | 37 (77.1) |
| University (Master) (%) | 11 (25.6) | 3 (6.2) |
| CAPE positive frequency (mean (sd)) | 0.84 (1.38) | 4.71 (2.99) |
| CAPE positive distress (mean (sd)) | 0.16 (0.37) | 4.33 (2.90) |
| CAPE negative frequency (mean (sd)) | 3.93 (2.78) | 14.14 (6.30) |
| CAPE negative distress (mean (sd)) | 2.14 (2.14) | 14.50 (8.14) |
| CAPE depressive frequency (mean (sd)) | 1.88 (1.55) | 9.08 (4.50) |
| CAPE depressive distress (mean (sd)) | 1.44 (1.86) | 10.35 (5.23) |
| CAPE total frequency (mean (sd)) | 6.65 (4.69) | 27.92 (11.89) |
| CAPE total distress (mean (sd)) | 3.74 (3.76) | 29.21 (14.11) |
| MADRS score (mean (sd)) | 1.35 (1.81) | 13.58 (7.16) |
| GAF score (mean (sd)) | 86.81 (6.34) | 62.17 (11.17) |
| Cannabis lifetime (mean (sd)) | 3.05 (9.93) | 8.15 (20.25) |
| Other drugs lifetime (mean (sd)) | 0.33 (1.49) | 11.06 (50.54) |
| PE-score (mean (sd))* | 1.10 (0.17) | 1.66 (0.86) |
Means, standard deviations and frequencies are provided per group. HC-group: Healthy Control group; PE-group: Subclinical Psychotic Experiences group; CAPE: community assessment of psychic experiences; MADRS: Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; GAF: Global Assessment of Functioning. The total lifetime cannabis and other drug use were calculated by multiplying the frequency per week times the number of weeks of use. * ESM data were missing for three participants in the HC-group and eight in the PE-group.
Group differences in tensor-derived indices and network connectivity measures
| PE-group | HC-group | B | χ2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fractional Anisotropy | 0.58 (0.084) | 0.58 (0.083) | n/a | 34.64 | 0.53 |
| Axial Diffusivity | 0.0014 (0.00018) | 0.0014 (0.00017) | n/a | 27.60 | 0.84 |
| Radial Diffusivity | 0.00048 (0.00079) | 0.00048 (0.00076) | n/a | 42.96 | 0.20 |
| Mean Diffusivity | 0.00077 (0.00074) | 0.00077 (0.00072) | n/a | 40.22 | 0.29 |
| Global efficiency | 0.72 (0.017) | 0.72 (0.017) | 0.0045 | n/a | 0.22 |
| Local efficiency | 0.85 (0.048) | 0.85 (0.049) | n/a | 62.55 | 0.98 |
| Clustering coefficient | 0.35 (0.049) | 0.35 (0.050) | n/a | 67.46 | 0.96 |
Means and standard deviations are provided per group. χ2, estimates and p values are derived from multilevel random regression analyses. B is the coefficient derived from the statistical model reflecting the estimated difference in global efficiency between the groups. n/a = not applicable.
PE-group = Subclinical Psychotic Experiences group, HC-group = Healthy Control group.
Interactions between attenuated symptoms and ROI in the models of tensor-derived indices within the PE group
| FA | AXD | RAD | MD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 | χ2 | χ2 | χ2 | |||||
| CAPE positive | ||||||||
| 25.69 | 0.92 | 26.52 | 0.90 | 23.32 | 0.96 | 16.00 | 0.99 | |
| 38.69 | 0.39 | 37.62 | 0.44 | 31.93 | 0.71 | 22.23 | 0.98 | |
| CAPE negative | ||||||||
| 24.77 | 0.94 | 20.17 | 0.99 | 22.79 | 0.97 | 26.54 | 0.92 | |
| 29.49 | 0.81 | 22.27 | 0.97 | 41.20 | 0.29 | 51.64 | 0.07 | |
| CAPE depressive | ||||||||
| 30.77 | 0.76 | 25.06 | 0.93 | 35.03 | 0.56 | 43.10 | 0.26 | |
| 31.36 | 0.73 | 32.11 | 0.70 | 38.70 | 0.39 | 56.52 | 0.03 | |
| CAPE total | ||||||||
| 26.60 | 0.90 | 21.33 | 0.98 | 24.37 | 0.95 | 25.14 | 0.95 | |
| 30.73 | 0.76 | 23.21 | 0.96 | 40.82 | 0.31 | 50.28 | 0.09 | |
| MADRS | ||||||||
| 28.42 | 0.84 | 41.94 | 0.27 | 22.99 | 0.97 | 43.09 | 0.26 | |
| Daily life ESM | ||||||||
| 21.28 | 0.98 | 19.85 | 0.99 | 17.92 | 0.99 | 14.23 | 0.99 | |
FA Fractional Anisotropy, AXD Axial Diffusivity, RAD Radial Diffusivity and MD Mean Diffusivity, CAPE Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences, MADRS Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, ESM Experience Sampling Method
χ2, estimates and p values are derived from multilevel random regression analyses
Association between subclinical symptoms and network connectivity measures within the PE group
| Global efficiency | Local efficiency | Clustering coefficient | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | χ2 | χ2 | ||||
| CAPE positive | ||||||
| 0.000038 | 0.97 | 149.91 | <0.0001 | 127.09 | 0.006 | |
| 0.00024 | 0.80 | 138.26 | 0.0006 | 128.67 | 0.005 | |
| CAPE negative | ||||||
| 0.00040 | 0.33 | 119.10 | 0.02 | 107.87 | 0.10 | |
| 0.00019 | 0.55 | 97.17 | 0.28 | 87.31 | 0.56 | |
| CAPE depressive | ||||||
| 0.00012 | 0.84 | 93.04 | 0.39 | 80.50 | 0.75 | |
| −0.00021 | 0.97 | 88.24 | 0.53 | 84.13 | 0.65 | |
| CAPE total | ||||||
| 0.00014 | 0.54 | 118.76 | 0.02 | 101.29 | 0.20 | |
| 0.000066 | 0.61 | 102.67 | 0.17 | 91.02 | 0.45 | |
| MADRS | ||||||
| −0.00016 | 0.64 | 66.30 | 0.97 | 72.98 | 0.90 | |
| Daily life ESM | ||||||
| −0.0084 | 0.97 | 77.90 | 0.81 | 72.49 | 0.91 | |
MADRS Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, ESM Experience Sampling Method
χ2, estimates and p-values are derived from multilevel random regression analyses (local efficiency and clustering coefficient) and regression for global efficiency
Fig. 1The significant association (B = 0.0040, p = 0.01) between local efficiency and CAPE positive distress score in the PE-group. CAPE; Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences
Fig. 2The significant association (B = 0.0039, p = 0.05) between clustering coefficient and CAPE positive distress score in the PE-group. CAPE; Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences