RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Adolescents with substance use disorder (SUD) and conduct problems exhibit high levels of impulsivity and poor self-control. Limited work to date tests for brain cortical thickness differences in these youths. OBJECTIVES: To investigate differences in cortical thickness between adolescents with substance use and conduct problems and controls. METHODS: We recruited 25 male adolescents with SUD, and 19 male adolescent controls, and completed structural 3T magnetic resonance brain imaging. Using the surface-based morphometry software FreeSurfer, we completed region-of-interest (ROI) analyses for group cortical thickness differences in left, and separately right, inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and insula. Using FreeSurfer, we completed whole-cerebrum analyses of group differences in cortical thickness. RESULTS: Versus controls, the SUD group showed no cortical thickness differences in ROI analyses. Controlling for age and IQ, no regions with cortical thickness differences were found using whole-cerebrum analyses (though secondary analyses co-varying IQ and whole-cerebrum cortical thickness yielded a between-group cortical thickness difference in the left posterior cingulate/precuneus). Secondary findings showed that the SUD group, relative to controls, demonstrated significantly less right > left asymmetry in IFG, had weaker insular-to-whole-cerebrum cortical thickness correlations, and showed a positive association between conduct disorder symptom count and cortical thickness in a superior temporal gyrus cluster. CONCLUSION: Functional group differences may reflect a more nuanced cortical morphometric difference than ROI cortical thickness. Further investigation of morphometric differences is needed. If replicable findings can be established, they may aid in developing improved diagnostic or more targeted treatment approaches.
Asunto(s)
Corteza Cerebral/patología , Trastorno de la Conducta/complicaciones , Trastorno de la Conducta/patología , Corteza Prefrontal/patología , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/complicaciones , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/patología , Adolescente , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Lóbulo Frontal/patología , Humanos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Masculino , NeuroimagenRESUMEN
The present study examined the role of positive parenting on externalizing behaviors in a longitudinal, genetically informative sample. It often is assumed that positive parenting prevents behavior problems in children via an environmentally mediated process. Alternatively, the association may be due to either an evocative gene-environment correlation, in which parents react to children's genetically-influenced behavior in a positive way, or a passive gene-environment correlation, where parents passively transmit a risk environment and the genetic risk factor for the behavioral outcome to their children. The present study estimated the contribution of these processes in the association between positive parenting and children's externalizing behavior. Positive parenting was assessed via observations at ages 7, 9, 14, 24, and 36 months and externalizing behaviors were assessed through parent report at ages 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 years. The significant association between positive parenting and externalizing behavior was negative, with children of mothers who showed significantly more positive parenting during toddlerhood having lower levels of externalizing behavior in childhood; however, there was not adequate power to distinguish whether this covariation was due to genetic, shared environmental, or nonshared environmental influences.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Performance status (PS) is a standard functional classification in oncology research and practice. However, despite its widespread use, little is known about the prevalence of poor PS in lung cancer patients, in relation to other cancers, based on the assessments of health care providers and patients. METHODS: Data from two quality of life studies were pooled for analysis. Analyses were performed on the subset of patients with lung cancer (n = 503) from the entire population of cancer patients (n = 2885). The prevalence of poor PS (defined as PS = 2-4 on a 0-4 scale) was determined for lung cancer patients. RESULTS: Prevalence of poor PS among lung cancer patients was 34% when estimated by providers and 48% when estimated by patients themselves. Agreement between providers and patients was only fair (weighted [kappa] = 0.41). For both advanced and early stage disease, lung cancer patients were at the highest risk for poor PS compared with other common cancers. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of poor PS is quite high in lung cancer patients. Providers tend to underestimate poor PS. Specific clinical trials and treatment guidelines for this patient population are urgently needed.