These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cognitive validation of cross-diagnostic cognitive subgroups on the schizophrenia-bipolar spectrum.
    Author: Karantonis JA, Rossell SL, Carruthers SP, Sumner P, Hughes M, Green MJ, Pantelis C, Burdick KE, Cropley V, Van Rheenen TE.
    Journal: J Affect Disord; 2020 Apr 01; 266():710-721. PubMed ID: 32056949.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Cognitive heterogeneity in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) and bipolar disorder (BD) has been explored using clustering analyses. However, the resulting subgroups have not been cognitively validated beyond measures used as clustering variables themselves. We compared the emergent cross-diagnostic subgroups of SSD and BD patients on measures used to classify them, and also across a range of alternative cognitive measures assessing some of the same constructs. METHOD: Domain scores from the Matrics Consensus Cognitive Battery were used in a cross-diagnostic clustering analysis of 86 patients with SSD (n = 45) and BD (n = 41). The emergent subgroups were then compared to each other and healthy controls (n = 76) on these and alternative measures of these domains, as well as on premorbid IQ, global cognition and a proxy of cognitive decline. RESULTS: A three-cluster solution was most appropriate, with subgroups labelled as Globally Impaired, Selectively Impaired, and Superior/Near-Normal relative to controls. With the exception of processing speed performance, the subgroups were generally differentiated on the cognitive domain scores used as clustering variables. Differences in cognitive performance among these subgroups were not always statistically significant when compared on the alternative cognitive measures. There was evidence of global cognitive impairment and putative cognitive decline in the two cognitively impaired subgroups. LIMITATIONS: For clustering analysis, sample size was relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: The overall pattern of findings tentatively suggest that emergent cross-diagnostic cognitive subgroups are not artefacts of the measures used to define them, but may represent the outcome of different cognitive trajectories.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]