Familial aggregation analysis of cognitive performance in early-onset bipolar disorder
- PDF / 927,807 Bytes
- 12 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 94 Downloads / 169 Views
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Familial aggregation analysis of cognitive performance in early‑onset bipolar disorder Jordi Soler1,2,3 · Sara Lera‑Miguel4,6 · Luisa Lázaro3,4,5,6 · Rosa Calvo3,4,6 · Panagiotis Ferentinos7 · Lourdes Fañanás1,2,3 · Mar Fatjó‑Vilas1,2,3,8 Received: 13 May 2019 / Accepted: 27 January 2020 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract We analysed the familial aggregation (familiality) of cognitive dimensions and explored their role as liability markers for early-onset bipolar disorder (EOBD). The sample comprised 99 subjects from 26 families, each with an offspring diagnosed with EOBD. Four cognitive dimensions were assessed: reasoning skills; attention and working memory; memory; and executive functions. Their familiality was investigated in the total sample and in a subset of healthy relatives. The intra-family resemblance score (IRS), a family-based index of the similarity of cognitive performance among family members, was calculated. Familiality was detected for the attention and working memory (AW) dimension in the total sample (ICC = 0.37, p = 0.0004) and in the subsample of healthy relatives (ICC = 0.37, p = 0.016). The IRS reflected that there are families with similar AW mean scores (either high or low) and families with heterogeneous scores. Families with the most common background for the AW dimension (IRS > 0) were selected and dichotomized in two groups according to the mean family AW score. This allowed differentiating families whose members had similar high scores than those with similar low scores: both patients (t = − 4.82, p = 0.0005) and relatives (t = − 5.04, p 0 (n = 13). It is of note that this IRS > 0 score represents homogeneity in AW performance among family members but does not inform on whether scores are similarly high or low. Accordingly, we used a median-based binning method to dichotomise these families according to the mean family AW scores and we analysed whether individuals of the families of the two generated groups differed in their AW scores. As regards to patients, individuals of the two groups show significantly different performance (t = − 4.82, p = 0.0005): X = − 0.52(0.19) (n = 6) vs to X = 0.59(0.13) (n = 7). A similar effect was observed when relatives belonging to the two groups were compared (t = − 5.04, p
Data Loading...
