Cited by 61Stress Responses and CortisolTreatment of Major DepressionChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Pituitary Volume in Treatment-Naïve Pediatric Major Depressive Disorder

MacMaster, Frank P., Russell, Aileen, Mirza, Yousha, Keshavan, Matcheri S., Taormina, S. Preeya, Bhandari, Rashmi, Boyd, Courtney, Lynch, Michelle +4 more·2006·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Prior pilot investigation identified a larger pituitary gland volume (PGV) in pediatric patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) compared with healthy pediatric control subjects that was most prominent in boys with MDD. In this independent sample, we focus on gender differences in pituitary volume in a larger sample of pediatric patients with MDD. Methods Volumetric magnetic resonance imaging studies were conducted in 35 psychotropic drug-naïve children (15 boys, 20 girls), ages 8-17 years, and 35 case-matched healthy control subjects. Results The MDD boys had larger PGV (19%) compared with male control subjects. No significant diagnostic group differences in pituitary volume were observed in girls. Healthy boys had significantly smaller PGV (27%) than healthy girls, whereas MDD boys did not differ from girls with MDD. Nonfamilial (without a family history of mood disorder) boys with MDD had significantly larger PGV (35%) than male healthy control subjects and tended to have a larger PGV (27%) than familial (at least one first-degree relative with MDD) boys with MDD. Boys with familial MDD did not differ from control subjects. Conclusions These findings provide new evidence of increased pituitary volume in psychotropic-naïve pediatric patients with MDD that seems to be more prominent in male patients with nonfamilial MDD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.04.013

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacMaster, F. P., Russell, A., Mirza, Y., Keshavan, M. S., Taormina, S. P., Bhandari, R., Boyd, C., Lynch, M., Rose, M., Ivey, J., Moore, G. J., & Rosenberg, D. R.
Affiliations
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Rosenberg, David R.
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
60
Issue
8
Pages
862-866
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053658608
Cited by
61
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (K24MH02037, R01 MH 59299, R01MH65122, K24MH002037, R01MH065122, R01MH059299)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
pituitary gland volume, sex differences, familial depression, brain volumetry
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pituitary Gland, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Sex Characteristics, Age of Onset

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review