@article{BaaderKianiBrunkhorstKanaanetal.2020,
  author    = {Baader, Anna and Kiani, Behnaz and Brunkhorst-Kanaan, Nathalie and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Reif, Andreas and Grimm, Oliver},
  title     = {A within-sample comparison of two innovative neuropsychological tests for assessing ADHD},
  series = {Brain Sciences},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Brain Sciences},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {2076-3425},
  doi       = {10.3390/brainsci11010036},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-220089},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {New innovative neuropsychological tests in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ADHD have been proposed as objective measures for diagnosis and therapy. The current study aims to investigate two different commercial continuous performance tests (CPT) in a head-to-head comparison regarding their comparability and their link with clinical parameters. The CPTs were evaluated in a clinical sample of 29 adult patients presenting in an ADHD outpatient clinic. Correlational analyses were performed between neuropsychological data, clinical rating scales, and a personality-based measure. Though inattention was found to positively correlate between the two tests (r = 0.49, p = 0.01), no association with clinical measures and inattention was found for both tests. While hyperactivity did not correlate between both tests, current ADHD symptoms were positively associated with Nesplora Aquarium's motor activity (r = 0.52 to 0.61, p < 0.05) and the Qb-Test's hyperactivity (r = 0.52 to 0.71, p < 0.05). Conclusively, the overall comparability of the tests was limited and correlation with clinical parameters was low. While our study shows some interesting correlation between clinical symptoms and sub-scales of these tests, usage in clinical practice is not recommended.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BiereKranzMaturaetal.2020,
  author    = {Biere, Silvia and Kranz, Thorsten M. and Matura, Silke and Petrova, Kristiyana and Streit, Fabian and Chiocchetti, Andreas G. and Grimm, Oliver and Brum, Murielle and Brunkhorst-Kanaan, Natalie and Oertel, Viola and Malyshau, Aliaksandr and Pfennig, Andrea and Bauer, Michael and Schulze, Thomas G. and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Reif, Andreas},
  title     = {Risk Stratification for Bipolar Disorder Using Polygenic Risk Scores Among Young High-Risk Adults},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychiatry},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychiatry},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyt.2020.552532},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-214976},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Objective: Identifying high-risk groups with an increased genetic liability for bipolar disorder (BD) will provide insights into the etiology of BD and contribute to early detection of BD. We used the BD polygenic risk score (PRS) derived from BD genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to explore how such genetic risk manifests in young, high-risk adults. We postulated that BD-PRS would be associated with risk factors for BD. Methods: A final sample of 185 young, high-risk German adults (aged 18-35 years) were grouped into three risk groups and compared to a healthy control group (n = 1,100). The risk groups comprised 117 cases with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 45 with major depressive disorder (MDD), and 23 help-seeking adults with early recognition symptoms [ER: positive family history for BD, (sub)threshold affective symptomatology and/or mood swings, sleeping disorder]. BD-PRS was computed for each participant. Logistic regression models (controlling for sex, age, and the first five ancestry principal components) were used to assess associations of BD-PRS and the high-risk phenotypes. Results: We observed an association between BD-PRS and combined risk group status (OR = 1.48, p < 0.001), ADHD diagnosis (OR = 1.32, p = 0.009), MDD diagnosis (OR = 1.96, p < 0.001), and ER group status (OR = 1.7, p = 0.025; not significant after correction for multiple testing) compared to healthy controls. Conclusions: In the present study, increased genetic risk for BD was a significant predictor for MDD and ADHD status, but not for ER. These findings support an underlying shared risk for both MDD and BD as well as ADHD and BD. Improving our understanding of the underlying genetic architecture of these phenotypes may aid in early identification and risk stratification.},
  language  = {en}
}