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