Trial reportEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2004
Principal component and volume of interest analyses in depressed patients imaged by 99mTc-HMPAO SPET: a methodological comparison.
Trial report in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamics of cerebral blood flow following sertraline treatment in adolescent depression.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Differences in cerebral perfusion deficits in mild traumatic brain injury and depression using single-photon emission computed tomography.Frontiers in neurology · 2014Article
- Altered cerebral perfusion in executive, affective, and motor networks during adolescent depression.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) studies on patients with unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) have analysed clusters of voxels or single regions and yielded conflicting results, showing either higher or lower rCBF in MDD as compared to normal controls (CTR). The aim of this study was to assess rCBF distribution changes in 68 MDD patients, investigating the data set with both volume of interest (VOI) analysis and principal component analysis (PCA). The rCBF distribution in 68 MDD and 66 CTR, at rest, was compared. Technetium-99m d, l-hexamethylpropylene amine oxime single-photon emission tomography was performed and the uptake in 27 VOIs, bilaterally, was assessed using a standardising brain atlas. Data were then grouped into factors by means of PCA performed on rCBF of all 134 subjects and based on all 54 VOIs. VOI analysis showed a significant group x VOI x hemisphere interaction ( P<0.001). rCBF in eight VOIs (in the prefrontal, temporal, occipital and central structures) differed significantly between groups at the P<0.05 level. PCA identified 11 anatomo-functional regions that interacted with groups ( P<0.001). As compared to CTR, MDD rCBF was relatively higher in right associative temporo-parietal-occipital cortex ( P<0.01) and bilaterally in prefrontal ( P<0.005) and frontal cortex ( P<0.025), anterior temporal cortex and central structures ( P<0.05 and P<0.001 respectively). Higher rCBF in a selected group of MDD as compared to CTR at rest was found using PCA in five clusters of regions sharing close anatomical and functional relationships. At the single VOI level, all eight regions showing group differences were included in such clusters. PCA is a data-driven method for recasting VOIs to be used for group evaluation and comparison. The appearance of significant differences absent at the VOI level emphasises the value of analysing the relationships among brain regions for the investigation of psychiatric disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14985863What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.