Cited by 198Treatment of Major DepressionBipolar Disorder and TreatmentNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

An update on regional brain volume differences associated with mood disorders

Campbell, Stephanie, MacQueen, Glenda·2006·Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Structural brain changes are apparent in some magnetic resonance imaging studies of patients with mood disorders, but results are inconsistent. The focus of this review is to examine whether there are demographic or clinical characteristics of people with mood disorders that are associated with regional brain volume changes. A systematic search of the literature in English, from January 2004 to July 2005, was performed on MEDLINE. References cited in all reports were searched iteratively to identify missing studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have focused on factors that might help to reconcile the divergent reports of regional brain volume changes in major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. Small hippocampal volumes are apparent in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder, but not generally reported early in the course of adult onset depression. Small hippocampal volumes may be apparent in patients with childhood onset illness. Small hippocampal volumes are infrequently reported in bipolar disorder, but studies to date have not accounted for illness history or treatment status. Changes in amygdala volumes are inconsistently reported in patients with major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder. There are relatively fewer reports of other brain regions, including the areas of the frontal cortex and striatum. An extensive preclinical literature suggests that various psychotropic medications may have neurotrophic and neuroprotective effects, making documentation of treatment history essential. SUMMARY: Patients' age, sex, age at onset of disease, course of illness and treatment status may affect the detection of regional brain volume changes in people with mood disorders.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.yco.0000194371.47685.f2

Cites

62 of 62 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
Campbell, S., & MacQueen, G.
Affiliations
McMaster University Medical Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
MacQueen, Glenda
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychiatry
Published
2006-01
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
25-33
ISSN
0951-7367 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059793861
Cited by
198
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 18
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
mood disorders, regional brain volume, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, hippocampal volume, amygdala volume, childhood-onset depression, age of onset, clinical course, neurotrophic effects, treatment status, frontal cortex, striatum
MeSH terms
Brain, Cell Count, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neuroglia, Disease Progression, Mood Disorders

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