Brain vs behavior: an effect size comparison of neuroimaging and cognitive studies of genetic risk for schizophrenia.

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/323604
Title:
Brain vs behavior: an effect size comparison of neuroimaging and cognitive studies of genetic risk for schizophrenia.
Authors:
Rose, Emma Jane; Donohoe, Gary
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James' Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland. rosee@tcd.ie
Citation:
Rose EJ, Donohoe G. Brain vs behavior: an effect size comparison of neuroimaging and cognitive studies of genetic risk for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2013, 39 (3):518-26
Journal:
Schizophrenia bulletin
Issue Date:
May-2013
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/323604
DOI:
10.1093/schbul/sbs056
PubMed ID:
22499782
Abstract:
Genetic variants associated with increased risk for schizophrenia (SZ) are hypothesized to be more penetrant at the level of brain structure and function than at the level of behavior. However, to date the relative sensitivity of imaging vs cognitive measures of these variants has not been quantified. We considered effect sizes associated with cognitive and imaging studies of 9 robust SZ risk genes (DAOA, DISC1, DTNBP1, NRG1, RGS4, NRGN, CACNA1C, TCF4, and ZNF804A) published between January 2005-November 2011. Summary data was used to calculate estimates of effect size for each significant finding. The mean effect size for each study was categorized as small, medium, or large and the relative frequency of each category was compared between modalities and across genes. Random effects meta-analysis was used to consider the impact of experimental methodology on effect size. Imaging studies reported mostly medium or large effects, whereas cognitive investigations commonly reported small effects. Meta-analysis confirmed that imaging studies were associated with larger effects. Effect size estimates were negatively correlated with sample size but did not differ as a function of gene nor imaging modality. These observations support the notion that SZ risk variants show larger effects, and hence greater penetrance, when characterized using indices of brain structure and function than when indexed by cognitive measures. However, it remains to be established whether this holds true for individual risk variants, imaging modalities, or cognitive functions, and how such effects may be mediated by a relationship with sample size and other aspects of experimental variability.
Item Type:
Article
Language:
en
Keywords:
SCHIZOPHRENIA; GENETICS
MeSH:
Brain; Cognition Disorders; Electroencephalography; Functional Neuroimaging; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Neuroimaging; Neuropsychological Tests; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology
ISSN:
1745-1701

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorRose, Emma Janeen_GB
dc.contributor.authorDonohoe, Garyen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2014-07-22T14:14:51Z-
dc.date.available2014-07-22T14:14:51Z-
dc.date.issued2013-05-
dc.identifier.citationRose EJ, Donohoe G. Brain vs behavior: an effect size comparison of neuroimaging and cognitive studies of genetic risk for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2013, 39 (3):518-26en_GB
dc.identifier.issn1745-1701-
dc.identifier.pmid22499782-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/schbul/sbs056-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/323604-
dc.description.abstractGenetic variants associated with increased risk for schizophrenia (SZ) are hypothesized to be more penetrant at the level of brain structure and function than at the level of behavior. However, to date the relative sensitivity of imaging vs cognitive measures of these variants has not been quantified. We considered effect sizes associated with cognitive and imaging studies of 9 robust SZ risk genes (DAOA, DISC1, DTNBP1, NRG1, RGS4, NRGN, CACNA1C, TCF4, and ZNF804A) published between January 2005-November 2011. Summary data was used to calculate estimates of effect size for each significant finding. The mean effect size for each study was categorized as small, medium, or large and the relative frequency of each category was compared between modalities and across genes. Random effects meta-analysis was used to consider the impact of experimental methodology on effect size. Imaging studies reported mostly medium or large effects, whereas cognitive investigations commonly reported small effects. Meta-analysis confirmed that imaging studies were associated with larger effects. Effect size estimates were negatively correlated with sample size but did not differ as a function of gene nor imaging modality. These observations support the notion that SZ risk variants show larger effects, and hence greater penetrance, when characterized using indices of brain structure and function than when indexed by cognitive measures. However, it remains to be established whether this holds true for individual risk variants, imaging modalities, or cognitive functions, and how such effects may be mediated by a relationship with sample size and other aspects of experimental variability.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Schizophrenia bulletinen_GB
dc.subjectSCHIZOPHRENIAen_GB
dc.subjectGENETICSen_GB
dc.subject.meshBrain-
dc.subject.meshCognition Disorders-
dc.subject.meshElectroencephalography-
dc.subject.meshFunctional Neuroimaging-
dc.subject.meshGenetic Predisposition to Disease-
dc.subject.meshHumans-
dc.subject.meshMagnetic Resonance Imaging-
dc.subject.meshNeuroimaging-
dc.subject.meshNeuropsychological Tests-
dc.subject.meshSchizophrenia-
dc.subject.meshSchizophrenic Psychology-
dc.titleBrain vs behavior: an effect size comparison of neuroimaging and cognitive studies of genetic risk for schizophrenia.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James' Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland. rosee@tcd.ieen_GB
dc.identifier.journalSchizophrenia bulletinen_GB
dc.description.fundingNo fundingen
dc.description.provinceLeinsteren
dc.description.peer-reviewpeer-reviewen

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in Lenus, The Irish Health Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.