Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31597159›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology2020

Neural and neurocognitive markers of vulnerability to gambling disorder: a study of unaffected siblings.

Eve H Limbrick-Oldfield, Inge Mick, Rachel E Cocks, Remy S A Flechais, Samuel Turton, Anne Lingford-Hughes, Henrietta Bowden-Jones, Luke Clark

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Eve H Limbrick-OldfieldCentre for Gambling Research at UBC, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. eve@psych.ubc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5400-8030
Inge MickCentre for Psychiatry, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Rachel E CocksDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Remy S A FlechaisCentre for Psychiatry, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Samuel TurtonCentre for Psychiatry, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2911-2375
Anne Lingford-HughesCentre for Psychiatry, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Henrietta Bowden-JonesNational Problem Gambling Clinic, CNWL NHS Foundation Trust, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Luke ClarkCentre for Gambling Research at UBC, Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. luke.clark@psych.ubc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1103-2422
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of British Columbia Hospital · CACentral and North West London NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G1100554Medical Research Council MR/N00616X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychological and neurobiological markers in individuals with gambling disorder (GD) could reflect transdiagnostic vulnerability to addiction or neuroadaptive consequences of long-term gambling. Using an endophenotypic approach to identify vulnerability markers, we tested the biological relatives of cases with GD. Male participants seeking treatment for GD (n = 20) were compared with a male control group (n = 18). Biological siblings of cases with GD (n = 17, unrelated to the current GD group) were compared with a separate control group (n = 19) that overlapped partially with the GD control group. Participants completed a comprehensive assessment of clinical scales, neurocognitive functioning, and fMRI of unexpected financial reward. The GD group displayed elevated levels of self-report impulsivity and delay discounting, and increased risk-taking on the Cambridge Gamble Task. We did not observe impaired motor impulsivity on the stop-signal task. Siblings of GD showed some overlapping effects; namely, elevated impulsivity (negative urgency) and increased risk-taking on the Cambridge Gamble Task. We did not observe any differences in the neural response to win outcomes, either in the GD or sibling analysis compared with their control group. Within the GD group, activity in the thalamus and caudate correlated negatively with gambling severity. Increased impulsivity and risk-taking in GD are present in biological relatives of cases with GD, suggesting these markers may represent pre-existing vulnerability to GD.

Indexed as

AdultBehavior, AddictiveDelay DiscountingFemaleGamblingHumansImpulsive BehaviorMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMental Status and Dementia TestsMiddle AgedSelf ReportSiblingsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31597159
PMCPMC6901470
OpenAlexW2979814055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.