3 results
Positive and negative parenting in conduct disorder with high versus low levels of callous–unemotional traits
- Ruth Pauli, Peter Tino, Jack C. Rogers, Rosalind Baker, Roberta Clanton, Philippa Birch, Abigail Brown, Gemma Daniel, Lisandra Ferreira, Liam Grisley, Gregor Kohls, Sarah Baumann, Anka Bernhard, Anne Martinelli, Katharina Ackermann, Helen Lazaratou, Foteini Tsiakoulia, Panagiota Bali, Helena Oldenhof, Lucres Jansen, Areti Smaragdi, Karen Gonzalez-Madruga, Miguel Angel Gonzalez-Torres, Maider Gonzalez de Artaza-Lavesa, Martin Steppan, Noortje Vriends, Aitana Bigorra, Reka Siklosi, Sreejita Ghosh, Kerstin Bunte, Roberta Dochnal, Amaia Hervas, Christina Stadler, Aranzazu Fernandez-Rivas, Graeme Fairchild, Arne Popma, Dimitris Dikeos, Kerstin Konrad, Beate Herpertz-Dahlmann, Christine M. Freitag, Pia Rotshtein, Stephane A. De Brito
-
- Journal:
- Development and Psychopathology / Volume 33 / Issue 3 / August 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 June 2020, pp. 980-991
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Less is known about the relationship between conduct disorder (CD), callous–unemotional (CU) traits, and positive and negative parenting in youth compared to early childhood. We combined traditional univariate analyses with a novel machine learning classifier (Angle-based Generalized Matrix Learning Vector Quantization) to classify youth (N = 756; 9–18 years) into typically developing (TD) or CD groups with or without elevated CU traits (CD/HCU, CD/LCU, respectively) using youth- and parent-reports of parenting behavior. At the group level, both CD/HCU and CD/LCU were associated with high negative and low positive parenting relative to TD. However, only positive parenting differed between the CD/HCU and CD/LCU groups. In classification analyses, performance was best when distinguishing CD/HCU from TD groups and poorest when distinguishing CD/HCU from CD/LCU groups. Positive and negative parenting were both relevant when distinguishing CD/HCU from TD, negative parenting was most relevant when distinguishing between CD/LCU and TD, and positive parenting was most relevant when distinguishing CD/HCU from CD/LCU groups. These findings suggest that while positive parenting distinguishes between CD/HCU and CD/LCU, negative parenting is associated with both CD subtypes. These results highlight the importance of considering multiple parenting behaviors in CD with varying levels of CU traits in late childhood/adolescence.
Genome-wide association study of treatment-resistance in depression and meta-analysis of three independent samples
- Chiara Fabbri, Siegfried Kasper, Alexander Kautzky, Lucie Bartova, Markus Dold, Joseph Zohar, Daniel Souery, Stuart Montgomery, Diego Albani, Ilaria Raimondi, Dimitris Dikeos, Dan Rujescu, Rudolf Uher, Cathryn M. Lewis, Julien Mendlewicz, Alessandro Serretti
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 214 / Issue 1 / January 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 November 2018, pp. 36-41
- Print publication:
- January 2019
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is the most problematic outcome of depression in terms of functional impairment, suicidal thoughts and decline in physical health.
AimsTo investigate the genetic predictors of TRD using a genome-wide approach to contribute to the development of precision medicine.
MethodA sample recruited by the European Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) including 1148 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) was characterised for the occurrence of TRD (lack of response to at least two adequate antidepressant treatments) and genotyped using the Infinium PsychArray. Three clinically relevant patient groups were considered: TRD, responders and non-responders to the first antidepressant trial, thus outcomes were based on comparisons of these groups. Genetic analyses were performed at the variant, gene and gene-set (i.e. functionally related genes) level. Additive regression models of the outcomes and relevant covariates were used in the GSRD participants and in a fixed-effect meta-analysis performed between GSRD, STAR*D (n = 1316) and GENDEP (n = 761) participants.
ResultsNo individual polymorphism or gene was associated with TRD, although some suggestive signals showed enrichment in cytoskeleton regulation, transcription modulation and calcium signalling. Two gene sets (GO:0043949 and GO:0000183) were associated with TRD versus response and TRD versus response and non-response to the first treatment in the GSRD participants and in the meta-analysis, respectively (corrected P = 0.030 and P = 0.027).
ConclusionsThe identified gene sets are involved in cyclic adenosine monophosphate mediated signal and chromatin silencing, two processes previously implicated in antidepressant action. They represent possible biomarkers to implement personalised antidepressant treatments and targets for new antidepressants.
Declaration of interestD.S. has received grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Lundbeck; has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Lundbeck. S.M. has been a consultant or served on advisory boards for: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Forest, Johnson & Johnson, Leo, Lundbeck, Medelink, Neurim, Pierre Fabre, Richter. S.K. has received grant/research support from Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Organon, Sepracor and Servier; has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Organon, Schwabe, Sepracor, Servier, Janssen and Novartis; and has served on speakers' bureaus for AstraZeneca, Eli Lily, Lundbeck, Schwabe, Sepracor, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Janssen and Neuraxpharm. J.Z. has received grant/research support from Lundbeck, Servier, Brainsway and Pfizer, has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Servier, Pfizer, Abbott, Lilly, Actelion, AstraZeneca and Roche and has served on speakers' bureaus for Lundbeck, Roch, Lilly, Servier, Pfizer and Abbott. J.M. is a member of the Board of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation and of Advisory Board of Servier. A.S. is or has been consultant/speaker for: Abbott, AbbVie, Angelini, Astra Zeneca, Clinical Data, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Innovapharma, Italfarmaco, Janssen, Lundbeck, Naurex, Pfizer, Polifarma, Sanofi and Servier. C.M.L. receives research support from RGA UK Services Limited.
Distribution of symptom dimensions across Kraepelinian divisions
- Dimitris G. Dikeos, Harvey Wickham, Colm McDonald, Muriel Walshe, Thordur Sigmundsson, Elvira Bramon, Anton Grech, Timothea Toulopoulou, Robin Murray, Pak C. Sham
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 189 / Issue 4 / October 2006
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2018, pp. 346-353
- Print publication:
- October 2006
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Dimensional structures are established for many psychiatric diagnoses, but dimensions have not been compared between diagnostic groups.
AimsTo examine the structure of dimensions in psychosis, to analyse their correlations with disease characteristics and to assess the relative contribution of dimensions v. diagnosis in explaining these characteristics.
MethodFactor analysis of the OPCRIT items of 191 Maudsley Family Study patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders with psychosis, schizoaffective disorder, and other psychotic illnesses, followed by regression of disease characteristics from factor scores and diagnosis.
ResultsFive factors were identified (mania, reality distortion, depression, disorganisation, negative); all were more variable in schizophrenia than in affective psychosis. Mania was the best discriminator between schizophrenia and affective psychosis; the negative factor was strongly correlated with poor premorbid functioning, insidious onset and worse course. Dimensions explained more of the disease characteristics than did diagnosis, but the explanatory power of the latter was also high.
ConclusionsKraepelinian diagnostic categories suffice for understanding illness characteristics, but the use of dimensions adds substantial information.