F21. ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF SELECTIVE ATTENTION IN ADOLESCENTS WITH A FIRST EPISODE OF PSYCHOSIS: A COMPARISON WITH ADHD
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Neuropsychological deficiencies in attentional processes and filtering of information are shown by both patients with schizophrenia and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Given that behavioral symptoms differ, differential neurophysiological processes are likely to be underlying each disorder. Deficiencies in early auditory processing measured by event-related potentials (ERPs) such as the P300 amplitude and mismatch negativity are suggested to be biomarkers for schizophrenia. Here we study if these electrophysiological processes are impaired in, and specific for, young individuals with a first episode psychosis (FEP), by directly comparing them with typically developing peers and adolescents with ADHD. 27 FEP patients, 25 ADHD patients and 45 age and gender matched Healthy Controls (HC), all aged between 12 and 17 years old, were assessed for their N1, N2, P2, P3a, P3b, MMN and PN amplitudes in a selective attention paradigm (auditory oddball task). ADHD patients showed significantly smaller N2 and P3b amplitudes than HC, whereas FEP patients showed intermediate amplitudes. In addition, we found a second order interaction effect, indicating that the HC group had larger P2 amplitudes to attended deviant stimuli than to unattended deviant stimuli, whereas the response to non-attended deviant stimuli did not differ from that to non-attended standard stimuli. The ADHD group did not show this difference, in fact, they showed P2 amplitudes to unattended deviant stimuli that were larger than those to unattended standards. Interestingly, this effect was also found in the FEP group, although this only reached trend level (p = 0.08) of statistical significance. Post-hoc dividing the FEP group in patients with and without a diagnosis of schizophrenia, showed the same second order interaction effect in patients without schizophrenia as that in the ADHD subjects, while the interaction effect in patients with schizophrenia was identical to that of the HC. Furthermore, FEP patients without schizophrenia showed significantly smaller P3b amplitudes compared to FEP patients with schizophrenia and HC. Last, FEP patients with schizophrenia showed trend level significant smaller MMN amplitudes than HC (p = 0.09). No further significant group differences were found. FEP patients without schizophrenia showed impaired neurophysiological functioning compared to their counterparts with schizophrenia, who in turn showed similar performance as healthy controls. Given that use of medication did not differ between FEP patients with and without schizophrenia, our data suggest that other factors may play a role, such as comorbid symptoms. Since we found considerable overlap between FEP patients without schizophrenia and ADHD patients our current data do not support the theory that any of the investigated electrophysiological measures are useful as specific biomarkers for schizophrenia.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».