Institutes
Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Differential diagnosis (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Highlights
• A panel of 20 biomarkers was identified capable of differentiating BD patients from controls.
• Excellent discrimination between established BD patients and controls.
• Good to excellent discrimination between misdiagnosed BD patients and first onset MDD patients.
• Fair to good discrimination between pre-diagnostic BD patients and controls.
• Study demonstrates the potential utility of a protein biomarker panel as a diagnostic test for BD.
Abstract
Background: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a costly, devastating and life shortening mental disorder that is often misdiagnosed, especially on initial presentation. Misdiagnosis frequently results in ineffective treatment. We investigated the utility of a biomarker panel as a diagnostic test for BD.
Methods and findings: We performed a meta-analysis of eight case-control studies to define a diagnostic biomarker panel for BD. After validating the panel on established BD patients, we applied it to undiagnosed BD patients. We analysed 249 BD, 122 pre-diagnostic BD, 75 pre-diagnostic schizophrenia and 90 first onset major depression disorder (MDD) patients and 371 controls. The biomarker panel was identified using ten-fold cross-validation with lasso regression applied to the 87 analytes available across the meta-analysis studies.
We identified 20 protein analytes with excellent predictive performance [area under the curve (AUC) ⩾ 0.90]. Importantly, the panel had a good predictive performance (AUC 0.84) to differentiate 12 misdiagnosed BD patients from 90 first onset MDD patients, and a fair to good predictive performance (AUC 0.79) to differentiate between 110 pre-diagnostic BD patients and 184 controls. We also demonstrated the disease specificity of the panel.
Conclusions: An early and accurate diagnosis has the potential to delay or even prevent the onset of BD. This study demonstrates the potential utility of a biomarker panel as a diagnostic test for BD.
Purpose: The diagnosis of abusive head trauma (AHT) is complex and neuroimaging plays a crucial role. Our goal was to determine whether non-neuroradiologists with standard neuroradiology knowledge perform as well as neuroradiologists with experience in pediatric neuroimaging in interpreting MRI in cases of presumptive AHT (pAHT).
Methods: Twenty children were retrospectively evaluated. Patients had been diagnosed with pAHT (6 patients), non-abusive head trauma-NAHT (5 patients), metabolic diseases (3 patients), and benign enlargement of the subarachnoid spaces (BESS) (6 patients). The MRI was assessed blindly, i.e., no clinical history was given to the 3 non-neuroradiologists and 3 neuroradiologists from 2 different institutions.
Results: Blindly, neuroradiologists demonstrated higher levels of sensitivity and positive predictive value in the diagnosis of pAHT (89%) than non-neuroradiologists (50%). Neuroradiologists chose correctly pAHT as the most probable diagnosis 16 out of 18 times; in contrast, non-neuroradiologists only chose 9 out of 18 times. In our series, the foremost important misdiagnosis for pAHT was NAHT (neuroradiologists twice and non-neuroradiologists 5 times). Only victims of motor vehicle accidents were blindly misdiagnosed as pAHT. No usual household NAHT was not misdiagnosed as pAHT. Neuroradiologists correctly ruled out pAHT in all cases of metabolic diseases and BESS.
Conclusion: MRI in cases of suspected AHT should be evaluated by neuroradiologists with experience in pediatric neuroimaging. Neuroradiologists looked beyond the subdural hemorrhage (SDH) and were more precise in the assessment of pAHT and its differential diagnosis than non-neuroradiologists were. It seems that non-neuroradiologists mainly assess whether or not a pAHT is present depending on the presence or absence of SDH.