Skip to main content

Table 1 Diffusion tensor imaging studies on ultra-high risk samples

From: White matter integrity in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis: a systematic review and discussion of the role of polyunsaturated fatty acids

Reference Population UHR assessment DTI parametersa Technique Major Findings
Bloemen et al., [30] 27 UHR-N (18 M, mean age = 18.9), 10 UHR-P (8 M, mean age = 20.7), 10 HC (8 M, mean age = 22.7) SIPS 3 T, EPI, 48 continuous 3 mm slices, 2x2x3mm VBA, whole brain UHR-P vs. HC: ↓ FA in bilateral medial frontal lobes.
UHR-P vs. UHR-N: ↓ FA lateral to right putamen and left superior temporal lobe,↑FA in left medial temporal lobe.
Positive PANSS negatively correlated with FA in left medial temporal lobe in UHR-P group, and right superior temporal lobe in total UHR group.
Carletti et a., [31] Baseline: 32 UHR (19 M, mean age = 23.4), 14 EOS (14 M, mean age = 25.9), 32 HC (27 M, mean age = 25.9) CAARMS 1.5 T, EPI, 60 contiguous 2.5 mm axial slices, 1.875x1.875x2.5 mm VBA, whole brain Baseline: FA was lowest in EOS, highest in HC and intermediate in UHR group. Clusters comprised in areas corresponding to CC, left ILF & SLF, left IFOF and cortico-subcortical pathways.
Follow-up: 22 UHR (5 UHR-P, 17 UHR-N) subjects (11 M, mean age = 26.6), 8 NC (17 M, mean age = 29.6) Longitudinal UHR-P vs. UHR-N: ↓ FA over time in left frontal white matter, CC, SCR and SFOF. But no significant within group change.
Bernard et al., [29] 26UHR (20 M, mean age = 18.5), 21 HC (15 M, mean age = 17.77) SIPS 3 T, EPI, GRAPPA parallel imaging factor 2, 72 slices, 2x2x2mm TBSS, ROI = thalamic-hippocampal tract UHR vs. HC: Significant group*time interaction. Controls FA ↑ over 12 months, while UHR FA ↓ over time (but no significant main effect of time).
Follow-up: 15UHR, 15 HC
Clemm von Hohenberg et al., [25] 28 UHR (18 M, mean age = 20.6), 34 HC (18 F, mean age = 20.4) SOPS 3 T, EPI, 75 contiguous axial 2 mm slices, 2x2x2mm TBSS, whole brain UHR vs. HC: MD ↑ in several right hemisphere clusters (most notably SLF, posterior corona radiata, and CC). RD ↑ posterior parietal lobe.
Epstein et al. [24] 21 UHR (18 M, mean age = 16.1), 55 EOS (31 M, mean age = 16.9), 55 HC (27 M, mean age = 16.5), 31 cannabis use (non-psychotic, 22 M, mean age = 17.6). SIPS 3 T, EPI, 64 sagittal 2 mm slices, 2x2x2mm Fiber tracking, ROIs = CB, SLF, CST, ILF, IFOF, and UF EOS and UHR vs. HC and cannabis: FA ↓ bilateral CST
EOS and UHR vs. HC: FA ↓ left ILF and IFOF
Karlsgodt et al., [27] 36 UHR (27 M, mean age = 17.0), 25 HC (12 M, mean age = 18.0) SIPS 1.5 T, EPI, 75 contiguous 2 mm AC-PC interleaved slices, 2x2x2mm TBSS, ROIs = UF, AF, CB, ILF, MTL, ATR UHR vs. HC: FA ↓ SLF at baseline. Did not increase FA with age in MTL and ILF.
FA ↓ MTL and ILF at baseline predicted reductions in functional outcomes in UHR.
Katagiri et al., [32] 16HC (8 M, mean age = 23.2), 11 UHR-NN(3 M, mean age = 24.2), 23 UHR-NA (6 M, mean age = 23.4), 7 UHR-P (1 M, mean age = 20.7) SIPS 1.5 T, EPI, 30 axial slices, 1.02 × 1.02 × 5 mm TBSS, whole brain for baseline analyses, followed by ROI (CC) for longitudinal analyses Baseline: UHR vs. HC: ↓ FA in CC. Result also present in UHR-N vs. HC. Longitudinal: UHR-N improvements in positive symptoms at follow-up, which correlated with increased FA in the CC.
Follow-up: same groups as above
Mittal et al., [28] 33UHR (20 M, mean age = 18.5), 35 HC (15 M, mean age = 17.77) SIPS 3 T, EPI, GRAPPA parallel imaging factor 2, 72 slices, 2x2x2mm TBSS, ROI = SCP UHR vs. HC: No group differences in baseline SCPs. Controls FA ↑ over 12 months, while UHR FA ↓ over time.
Follow-up: 15UHR, 15 HC
Peters et al., [22] 10 UHR (mean age = 21.2), 10 EOS (mean age = 21.6) and 10 HC (mean age = 21.1). All male sample. SIPS 3 T, EPI, 48 continuous (para)transversal slices, 3x3.5x2.2 mm Fiber tracking, ROIs = UF, AF, CB, CC No group differences
Peters et al., [23] Same subjects as Peters et al. (2008) SIPS As above VBA, whole brain UHR vs. HC: FA ↓ bilateral superior and middle frontal
EOS vs. HC: FA ↓ bilateral temporal & parietal, and left frontal
Peters et al., [26] 10 UHR-N (mean age = 21.2), 7 UHR-P (mean age = 22.6), 10 HC (mean age = 21.1). All male sample. SIPS As above Fiber tracking, ROIs = UF, AF, CB, CC No group differences
Petersson-Yeo et al., [33] 19 (12 M) pairs EOS (mean age = 24.37) vs. HC (mean age = 24.89) CAARMS 3 T, EPI, 60 contiguous axial 2.4 mm slices TBSS, whole brain FA differentiated UHR and EOS from HC. Pattern of findings were widely and diffusely spread, with no clear concentration of regions.
FA did not differentiate UHR and EOS.
19 (9 M) pairs UHR (mean age = 22.42) vs. HC (mean age = 23.32)
15 (9 M) pairs UHR (mean age = 23.2) vs. EOS (mean age = 23.2)
  1. aDTI parameters: field strength, acquisition technique, slice number/thickness/direction, voxel dimensions AC-PC: anterior commissure - posterior commissure; AF = arcuate fasiculus; ATR = anterior thalamic radiation; CAARMS: Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States; CB = cingulate bundle; CC = corpus callosum; CST = cortiospinal tract; EOS = early onset schizophrenia; EPI: echo planar imaging; GRAPPA = generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions; HC = healthy controls; IFOF = inferior fronto-occipital fasiculus; ILF = inferior longitudinal fasiculus; ROI = region of interest; SCP = Superior cerebellar peduncle; SCR = superior corona radiata; SFOF = superior frontal occipital fasciculus; SIPS: Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes; SLF = superior longitudinal fasiculus; SOPS: Scale of Prodromal Symptoms; TBSS = tract based spatial statistics; UF = uncinate fasiculus; UHR = ultra high risk for schizophrenia; UHR-P = ultra-high risk subjects who transitioned to psychosis; UHR-N = ultra-high risk subjects who did not transition to psychosis; UHR-NA = ultra-high risk subjects who did not transition to psychosis and were prescribed antipsychotic mediation; UHR-NN = ultra-high risk subjects who did not transition to psychosis and were not prescribed antipsychotic mediation; VBA = voxel based analyses