Kraepelin revisited: schizophrenia from degeneration to failed regeneration
Falkai P, Rossner MJ, Schulze TG, Hasan A, Brzózka MM, Malchow B, Honer WG, Schmitt A.. Molecular psychiatry, 2015-03-31
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
One hundred years after its conceptual definition as 'Dementia Praecox' by Emil Kraepelin, schizophrenia is still a serious psychiatric illness that affects young adults and leads to disability in at least half of patients. The key treatment issue is partial or non-response, especially of negative symptoms. The illness is also associated with different degrees of cognitive dysfunction, particularly in verbal and working memory; the resulting functional impairment may lead to unemployment and an inability to maintain stable relationships. Patients' cognitive dysfunction led Kraepelin to the assumption that schizophrenia is a form of juvenile dementia caused by a degenerative process of the human brain. Postmortem studies and a plethora of imaging studies do not support the notion of a degenerative process, but such a process is supported by the recently published, largest genome-wide association study on schizophrenia. More than a 100 hits were described, converging on pathways that have a significant role in dopamine metabolism in immune modulation, calcium signalling and synaptic plasticity. This review suggests that research should focus on animal models based on risk genes like transcription factor 4 and study the effects of exposure to environmental stressors relevant for schizophrenia. The use of relevant end points like pre-pulse inhibition or cognitive dysfunction will allow us to gain an understanding of the molecular pathways in schizophrenia and consequently result in improved treatment options, especially for the disabling aspects of this illness.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Falkai, P., Rossner, M. J., Schulze, T. G., Hasan, A., Brzózka, M. M., Malchow, B., et al. (2015). Kraepelin revisited: schizophrenia from degeneration to failed regeneration. Molecular psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.35
Vancouver
Falkai P, Rossner MJ, Schulze TG, Hasan A, Brzózka MM, Malchow B, et al. Kraepelin revisited: schizophrenia from degeneration to failed regeneration. Molecular psychiatry. 2015. doi:10.1038/mp.2015.35. PMID: 25824303.
BibTeX
@article{falkai2015-25824303,
author = {Falkai, P. and Rossner, M. J. and Schulze, T. G. and Hasan, A. and Brzózka, M. M. and Malchow, B. and Honer, W. G. and Schmitt, A.},
title = {{Kraepelin revisited: schizophrenia from degeneration to failed regeneration}},
journal = {Molecular psychiatry},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1038/mp.2015.35},
pmid = {25824303},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2015.35}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The illness is also associated with different degrees of cognitive dysfunction, particularly in verbal and working memory; the resulting functional impairment may lead to unemployment and an inability to maintain stable relationships.
- More than a 100 hits were described, converging on pathways that have a significant role in dopamine metabolism in immune modulation, calcium signalling and synaptic plasticity.
- This review suggests that research should focus on animal models based on risk genes like transcription factor 4 and study the effects of exposure to environmental stressors relevant for schizophrenia.
- The use of relevant end points like pre-pulse inhibition or cognitive dysfunction will allow us to gain an understanding of the molecular pathways in schizophrenia and consequently result in improved treatment options, especially for the disabling aspects of this illness.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Molecular psychiatry) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25824303) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.