Individual differences in social network size linked to nucleus accumbens and hippocampal volumes in [FND]: A pilot study, 2019, Perez et al

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
Not a recommendation at all.

Full title: Individual differences in social network size linked to nucleus accumbens and hippocampal volumes in functional neurological disorder: A pilot study
Highlights

• Social network size in FND correlated with hippocampal and nucleus accumbens volume.
• Social network size in FND positively correlated with mental and physical health.
• This pilot study adds to the biopsychosocial understanding of patients with FND.

Abstract
Background
In the biopsychosocial formulation of functional neurological (conversion) disorder (FND), little is known about relationships between social behavior and brain anatomy. We hypothesized that social behavior would relate to brain areas implicated in affiliative behaviors and that social network size would correlate with symptom severity and predisposing vulnerabilities in FND.

Methods
This neuroimaging pilot probed how social network size, as measured by the Social Network Index, related to structural brain profiles in 23 patients with motor FND (15 woman and 8 men). FreeSurfer cortical thickness and subcortical volumetric analyses were performed correcting for multiple comparisons. Stratified analyses compared FND patients with a low social network size to matched healthy controls. Secondary exploratory analyses in an expanded sample of 38 FND patients investigated relationships between social network size, risk factors and patient-reported symptom severity.

Results
Adjusting for age and gender, neuroimaging analyses showed that social network size positively correlated with left nucleus accumbens and hippocampal volumes in patients with FND; stratified analyses did not show any group-level differences. In individuals with FND, social network size correlated with health-related quality of life, graduating college, working full-time and a non-epileptic seizure diagnosis; social network size inversely related to lifetime trauma burden, post-traumatic stress disorder severity and age.

Limitations
Only patient-reported scales were used and social network size information was not collected for healthy subjects.

Conclusions
This neuroimaging pilot adds to the literature linking affiliation network brain areas to pro-social behaviors and enhances the biopsychosocial conceptualization of FND.
Click to expand...
Paywall, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032719308559
Sci hub, https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jad.2019.07.061
 
This sounds like something that would broadly reflect disease severity, wealth, living circumstances etc. Comparison with a control group adequate for this purpose hasn't been done so who knows whether this tells us anything about FND in particular as the authors seem to think.
 
I would expect health to be a more significant determiner of social network size, regardless of the underlying aetiology, rather than the other way round as this article seems to be suggesting.

Where are the normal controls, where are the comparators with identified biomedical neurological conditions?

What is the relationship between social network size and these brain structures in normals?

Where is the evaluation of social network size in the target patient population pre onset, and how is it impacted by their condition?

Where is the evidence that the links between social network size and life success observed in a normal population are the same in specific patient groups?

Also I can not be repeated too often that correlation is not causation.

Even if there is a correlation between brain structure and social network size, the relationship between the two and of both of them to health is likely to be profoundly complex, and any link to the disabling impact of FND to be even more complex.
 
Peter Trewhitt said:
I would expect health to be a more significant determiner of social network size, regardless of the underlying aetiology, rather than the other way round as this article seems to be suggesting.

Where are the normal controls, where are the comparators with identified biomedical neurological conditions?

What is the relationship between social network size and these brain structures in normals?

Where is the evaluation of social network size in the target patient population pre onset, and how is it impacted by their condition?

Where is the evidence that the links between social network size and life success observed in a normal population are the same in specific patient groups?

Also I can not be repeated too often that correlation is not causation.

Even if there is a correlation between brain structure and social network size, the relationship between the two and of both of them to health is likely to be profoundly complex, and any link to the disabling impact of FND to be even more complex.
Click to expand...

Either people on here like @Peter Trewhitt are geniuses or these researchers are really really thick why can they not pick up these issues themselves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top