↓ Skip to main content

A systematic examination of brain volumetric abnormalities in recent-onset schizophrenia using voxel-based, surface-based and region-of-interest-based morphometric analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 112)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic examination of brain volumetric abnormalities in recent-onset schizophrenia using voxel-based, surface-based and region-of-interest-based morphometric analyses
Published in
Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12952-015-0030-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

John P. John, Ammu Lukose, Bhavani Shankara Bagepally, Harsha N. Halahalli, Nagaraj S. Moily, Anupa A. Vijayakumari, Sanjeev Jain

Abstract

Brain morphometric abnormalities in schizophrenia have been extensively reported in the literature. Whole-brain volumetric reductions are almost universally reported by most studies irrespective of the characteristics of the samples studied (e.g., chronic/recent-onset; medicated/neuroleptic-naïve etc.). However, the same cannot be said of the reported regional morphometric abnormalities in schizophrenia. While certain regional morphometric abnormalities are more frequently reported than others, there are no such abnormalities that are universally reported across studies. Variability of socio-demographic and clinical characteristics across study samples as well as technical and methodological issues related to acquisition and analyses of brain structural images may contribute to inconsistency of brain morphometric findings in schizophrenia. The objective of the present study therefore was to systematically examine brain morphometry in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia to find out if there are significant whole-brain or regional volumetric differences detectable at the appropriate significance threshold, after attempting to control for various confounding factors that could impact brain volumes. Structural magnetic resonance images of 90 subjects (schizophrenia = 45; healthy subjects = 45) were acquired using a 3 Tesla magnet. Morphometric analyses were carried out following standard analyses pipelines of three most commonly used strategies, viz., whole-brain voxel-based morphometry, whole-brain surface-based morphometry, and between-group comparisons of regional volumes generated by automated segmentation and parcellation. In our sample of patients having recent-onset schizophrenia with limited neuroleptic exposure, there were no significant whole brain or regional brain morphometric abnormalities noted at the appropriate statistical significance thresholds with or without including age, gender and intracranial volume or total brain volume in the statistical analyses. In the background of the conflicting findings in the literature, our findings indicate that brain morphometric abnormalities may not be directly related to the schizophrenia phenotype. Analysis of the reasons for the inconsistent results across studies as well as consideration of alternate sources of variability of brain morphology in schizophrenia such as epistatic and epigenetic mechanisms could perhaps advance our understanding of structural brain alterations in schizophrenia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 24%
Psychology 9 24%
Neuroscience 6 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,216,867
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#39
of 112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,729
of 264,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.