No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe clinical presentation of common symptoms during depressive episodes in bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) poses challenges for accurate diagnosis. Disorder-specific neuroanatomical features may aid the development of reliable discrimination between these two clinical conditions.MethodsFor our sample of 16 BD patients, 19 MDD patients and 29 healthy volunteers, we adopted vertex-wise cortical based brain imaging techniques to examine cortical thickness and surface area, two components of cortical volume with distinct genetic determinants. Based on specific characteristics of neuroanatomical features, we then used support vector machine (SVM) algorithm to discriminate between patients with BD and MDD.ResultsCompared to MDD patients, BD patients showed significantly larger cortical surface area in the left bankssts, precuneus, precentral, inferior parietal, superior parietal and the right middle temporal gyri. In addition, larger volumes of subcortical regions were found in BD patients. In SVM discriminative analyses, the overall accuracy was 74.3 %, with a sensitivity of 62.5 % and a specificity of 84.2 % (p = 0.028). Compared to controls, larger surface area in the temporo-parietal regions were observed in BD patients, and thinner cortices in fronto-temporal regions were observed in MDD patients, especially in the medial orbito-frontal area.ConclusionsThese findings have demonstrated distinct spatially distributed variations in cortical thickness and surface area in patients with BD and MDD, suggesting potentially varying etiological and neuropathological processes in these two conditions. The employment of multimodal classification on disorder-specific biological features has shed light to the development of potential classification tools that could aid diagnostic decisions.

No abstract

The Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE) is a commonly used instrument in empathy research. However, this scale has not been validated in the Chinese context. We examined the psychometric properties and structure of the QCAE in a Chinese sample consisting of 1224 college students. The whole sample was split into two halves for exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 617) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 607). A subsample (n = 351) completed the Chinese versions of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) to examine convergent validity and the Revised Social Anhedonia Scale (RSAS) to examine the discriminate validity. Finally, 79 participants of the above subsample were retested after a 4‐week interval. Results from EFA and CFA suggested a five‐factor model, namely Perspective Taking, Online Simulation, Emotional Contagion, Proximal Responsivity, and Peripheral Responsivity. The internal consistency was .86 and test–retest reliability was .76. Scores on the QCAE positively correlated with scores on the IRI and negatively correlated with scores on the RSAS. The Chinese version of the QCAE exhibited good factor structure, reliability, and validity. Specific relationships between empathy and social anhedonia were also demonstrated.