Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Overview of the clinical implementation of a study exploring social withdrawal in patients with schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease
Bilderbeck AC, Penninx BWJH, Arango C, van der Wee N, Kahn R, Winter-van Rossum I, Hayen A, Kas MJ et al.. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2018-06-22
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Trans-diagnostic, domain- or symptom-focused approaches have been heralded as advancing psychiatric research, but relatively few clinical research programmes have been undertaken to leverage their potential. In this manuscript we describe the approach and protocol for an exploratory study, PRISM (Psychiatric Ratings using Intermediate Stratified Markers), that will be conducted to explore the biomarkers in schizophrenia (SZ) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD) that may be related to a common symptom, social withdrawal. Patient participants (N = 72 SZ and N = 72 AD study completers), will complete a series of fMRI, EEG, and behavioural paradigms, as well as contributing blood-derived (e.g. epigenetic) and smartphone data related to social behaviour. Self- as well as caregiver- and researcher-reported assessments will be provided to characterise social withdrawal. Normative data will also be collected from a group of healthy controls (N = 48 study completers), half of whom will be matched in terms of age and gender distribution to the SZ and AD group, respectively. Thus we will explore both differentiation and cross-diagnostic overlap in the biomarkers associated with different levels of social withdrawal in SZ and AD. In this way we aim to provide a deeper understanding of the biological underpinnings of symptomatology common to both disorders, and provide insights into novel treatment targets and future drug development approaches.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bilderbeck, A. C., Penninx, B. W. J. H., Arango, C., van der Wee, N., Kahn, R., Winter-van Rossum, I., et al. (2019). Overview of the clinical implementation of a study exploring social withdrawal in patients with schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.019
Vancouver
Bilderbeck AC, Penninx BWJH, Arango C, van der Wee N, Kahn R, Winter-van Rossum I, et al. Overview of the clinical implementation of a study exploring social withdrawal in patients with schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.019. PMID: 29940238.
BibTeX
@article{bilderbeck2019-29940238,
author = {Bilderbeck, A. C. and Penninx, B. W. J. H. and Arango, C. and van der Wee, N. and Kahn, R. and Winter-van Rossum, I. and Hayen, A. and Kas, M. J. and others},
title = {{Overview of the clinical implementation of a study exploring social withdrawal in patients with schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.019},
pmid = {29940238},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.019}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Thus we will explore both differentiation and cross-diagnostic overlap in the biomarkers associated with different levels of social withdrawal in SZ and AD.
Study details
- Participants72
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 72 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 29940238) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “networks”
187 studies in the library carry the topic tag “networks”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 187 tagged studies.