Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Sex differences in cognitive functioning of patients at-risk for psychosis and healthy controls: Results from the European Gene–Environment Interactions study

  • Stephanie Menghini-Müller (a1), Erich Studerus (a2), Sarah Ittig (a1), Lucia R. Valmaggia (a3), Matthew J. Kempton (a4), Mark van der Gaag (a5) (a6), Lieuwe de Haan (a7) (a8), Barnaby Nelson (a9), Rodrigo A. Bressan (a10), Neus Barrantes-Vidal (a11), Célia Jantac (a12), Merete Nordentoft (a13) (a14), Stephan Ruhrmann (a15), Garbiele Sachs (a16), Bart P. Rutten (a17), Jim van Os (a18) (a19) (a20), Anita Riecher-Rössler (a1) and the EU-GEI High Risk Study Group (a21)...

Abstract

Background.

Sex differences in cognitive functioning have long been recognized in schizophrenia patients and healthy controls (HC). However, few studies have focused on patients with an at-risk mental state (ARMS) for psychosis. Thus, the aim of the present study was to investigate sex differences in neurocognitive performance in ARMS patients compared with HC.

Methods.

The data analyzed in this study were collected within the multicenter European Gene–Environment Interactions study (11 centers). A total of 343 ARMS patients (158 women) and 67 HC subjects (33 women) were included. All participants completed a comprehensive neurocognitive battery. Linear mixed effects models were used to explore whether sex differences in cognitive functioning were present in the total group (main effect of sex) and whether sex differences were different for HC and ARMS (interaction between sex and group).

Results.

Women performed better in social cognition, speed of processing, and verbal learning than men regardless of whether they were ARMS or HC. However, only differences in speed of processing and verbal learning remained significant after correction for multiple testing. Additionally, ARMS patients displayed alterations in attention, current IQ, speed of processing, verbal learning, and working memory compared with HC.

Conclusions.

Findings indicate that sex differences in cognitive functioning in ARMS are similar to those seen between healthy men and women. Thus, it appears that sex differences in cognitive performance may not be specific for ARMS, a finding resembling that in patients with schizophrenic psychoses.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Sex differences in cognitive functioning of patients at-risk for psychosis and healthy controls: Results from the European Gene–Environment Interactions study
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Sex differences in cognitive functioning of patients at-risk for psychosis and healthy controls: Results from the European Gene–Environment Interactions study
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Sex differences in cognitive functioning of patients at-risk for psychosis and healthy controls: Results from the European Gene–Environment Interactions study
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Anita Riecher-Rössler E-mail: anita.riecher@unibas.ch

References

Hide All
[1]Riecher-Rössler, A, Butler, S, Kulkarni, J. Sex and gender differences in schizophrenic psychoses—a critical review. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2018;21(6):627648.
[2]Mendrek, A, Mancini-Marie, A. Sex/gender differences in the brain and cognition in schizophrenia. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;67:5778.
[3]Kahn, RS, Keefe, RS. Schizophrenia is a cognitive illness: time for a change in focus. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70:1107.
[4]Hauser, M, Zhang, JP, Sheridan, EM, Burdick, KE, Mogil, R, Kane, JM, et al.Neuropsychological test performance to enhance identification of subjects at clinical high risk for psychosis and to be most promising for predictive algorithms for conversion to psychosis: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychiatry. 2017;78(1):e28e40.
[5]Studerus, E, Papmeyer, M, Riecher-Rössler, A. Neurocognition and motor functioning in the prediction of psychosis. In: Riecher-Rössler, A, PD, McGorry, editors. Early detection and intervention in psychosis: state of the art and future perspectives. Key issues in mental health. 181. Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 2016. p. 116132.
[6]Riecher-Rössler, A, Pflueger, MO, Aston, J, Borgwardt, SJ, Warrick, JB, Gschwandtner, U, et al.Efficacy of using cognitive status in predicting psychosis: a 7-year follow-up. Biol Psychiatry. 2009;66:10231030.
[7]Riecher-Rössler, A, Studerus, E. Prediction of conversion to psychosis in individuals with an at-risk mental state: a brief update on recent developments. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2017;30(3):209219.
[8]Michel, C, Ruhrmann, S, Schimmelmann, BG, Klosterkötter, J, Schultze-Lutter, F. A stratified model for psychosis prediction in clinical practice. Schizophr Bull. 2014;40(6):15331542.
[9]Hyde, JS. How large are cognitive gender differences—a meta-analysis using omega-2 and D. Am Psychol. 1981;36:892901.
[10]Ittig, S, Studerus, E, Papmeyer, M, Uttinger, M, Koranyi, S, Ramyead, A, et al.Sex differences in cognitive functioning in at-risk mental state for psychosis, first episode psychosis and healthy control subjects. Eur Psychiatry. 2015;30(2):242250.
[11]Halpern, DF. A cognitive-process taxonomy for sex differences in cognitive abilities. Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 2004;13(4):135139.
[12]Miller, DI, Halpern, DF. The new science of cognitive sex differences. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(1):3745.
[13]Zhang, BH, Han, M, Zhang, XY, Hui, L, Jiang, SR, Yang, FD, et al.Gender differences in cognitive deficits in schizophrenia with and without diabetes. Compr Psychiatry. 2015;63:19.
[14]Bozikas, VP, Kosmidis, MH, Peltekis, A, Giannakou, M, Nimatoudis, I, Karavatos, A, et al.Sex differences in neuropsychological functioning among schizophrenia patients. Austr N Z J Psychiatry. 2010;44:333341.
[15]Fusar-Poli, P, Deste, G, Smieskova, R, Barlati, S, Yung, AR, Howes, O, et al.Cognitive functioning in prodromal psychosis: a meta-analysis. Archiv Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69(6):562571.
[16]Kraan, TC, Velthorst, E, Themmen, M, Valmaggia, L, Kempton, MJ, McGuire, P, et al.Child maltreatment and clinical outcome in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis in the EU-GEI High Risk Study. Schizophr Bull. 2018;44(3):584592.
[17]Yung, AR, Yuen, HP, McGorry, PD, Phillips, LJ, Kelly, D, Dell'Olio, M, et al.Mapping the onset of psychosis: the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States. Austr N Z J Psychiatry. 2005;39(11–12):964971.
[18]Wittchen, H-U, Zauding, M, Fydrich, T. Strukturiertes klinisches interview für DSM-IV. Achse-I: psychische störungen. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe, 1997.
[19]Mallett, R. Sociodemographic schedule. London, UK: Section of Social Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, 1997.
[20]Barkus, EJ, Stirling, J, Hopkins, RS, Lewis, S. Cannabis-induced psychosis-like experiences are associated with high schizotypy. Psychopathology. 2006;39(4):175178.
[21]Goldman, HH, Skodol, AE, Lave, TR. Revising axis V for DSM-IV: a review of measures of social functioning. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149(9):11481156.
[22]Green, MF, Nuechterlein, KH, Gold, JM, Barch, DM, Cohen, J, Essock, S, et al.Approaching a consensus cognitive battery for clinical trials in schizophrenia: the NIMH-MATRICS conference to select cognitive domains and test criteria. Biol Psychiatry. 2004;56(5):301307.
[23]Wechsler, D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales, third edition (WAIS-III). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 1997.
[24]Huq, SF, Garety, PA, Hemsley, DR. Probabilistic judgements in deluded and non-deluded subjects. Q J Exp Psychol. 1988;40A:801812.
[25]Battery, AIT. Manual of directions and scoring. Washington, DC: War Department, Adjutant General's Office, 1944.
[26]Rey, A. L'Examen clinique en psychologie. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France, 1964.
[27]van't Wout, M, Aleman, A, Kessels, RP, Laroi, F, Kahn, RS. Emotional processing in a non-clinical psychosis-prone sample. Schizophr Res. 2004;68:271281.
[28]Benton, AL, Silvan, AB, Hamsher, KD, Varney, NR, Spreen, O. Benton's test of facial recognition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1983.
[29]Velthorst, E, Levine, SZ, Henquet, C, De Haan, L, Van Os, J, Myin-Germeys, I, et al.To cut a short test even shorter: reliability and validity of a brief assessment of intellectual ability in schizophrenia—a control-case family study. Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2013;18(6):574593.
[30]Ventura, J, Lukoff, D, Nuechterlein, KH, Liberman, RP, Green, MF, Shaner, A. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) expanded version: scales, anchor points, and administration manual. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 1993;3:227243.
[31]Shafer, A, Dazzi, F, Ventura, J. Factor structure of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Expanded (BPRS-E) in a large hospitalized sample. J Psychiatr Res. 2017;93:7986.
[32]R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: Computing RFfS, 2017.
[33]Benjamini, Y, Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate—a practival and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1995(57):289300.
[34]Burns, NR, Nettelbeck, T. Inspection time and speed of processing: sex differences on perceptual speed but not IT. Personal Individ Diff. 2005;39:439446.
[35]Jorm, AF, Anstey, KJ, Christensen, H, Rodgers, B. Gender differences in cognitive abilities: the mediating role of health state and health habits. Intelligence. 2004;32:723.
[36]Vaskinn, A, Sundet, K, Simonsen, C, Hellvin, T, Melle, I, Andreassen, OA. Sex differences in neuropsychological performance and social functioning in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Neuropsychology. 2011;25(4):499510.
[37]Torniainen, M, Suvisaari, J, Partonen, T, Castaneda, AE, Kuha, A, Perala, J, et al.Sex differences in cognition among persons with schizophrenia and healthy first-degree relatives. Psychiatry Res. 2011;188(1):712.
[38]Nuechterlein, KH, Green, MF, Kern, RS, Baade, LE, Barch, DM, Cohen, JD, et al.The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, part 1: test selection, reliability, and validity. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(2):203213.
[39]Hampson, E. Variations in sex-related cognitive abilities across the menstrual cycle. Brain Cogn. 1990;14(1):2643.

Keywords

Sex differences in cognitive functioning of patients at-risk for psychosis and healthy controls: Results from the European Gene–Environment Interactions study

  • Stephanie Menghini-Müller (a1), Erich Studerus (a2), Sarah Ittig (a1), Lucia R. Valmaggia (a3), Matthew J. Kempton (a4), Mark van der Gaag (a5) (a6), Lieuwe de Haan (a7) (a8), Barnaby Nelson (a9), Rodrigo A. Bressan (a10), Neus Barrantes-Vidal (a11), Célia Jantac (a12), Merete Nordentoft (a13) (a14), Stephan Ruhrmann (a15), Garbiele Sachs (a16), Bart P. Rutten (a17), Jim van Os (a18) (a19) (a20), Anita Riecher-Rössler (a1) and the EU-GEI High Risk Study Group (a21)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

Sex differences in cognitive functioning of patients at-risk for psychosis and healthy controls: Results from the European Gene–Environment Interactions study

  • Stephanie Menghini-Müller (a1), Erich Studerus (a2), Sarah Ittig (a1), Lucia R. Valmaggia (a3), Matthew J. Kempton (a4), Mark van der Gaag (a5) (a6), Lieuwe de Haan (a7) (a8), Barnaby Nelson (a9), Rodrigo A. Bressan (a10), Neus Barrantes-Vidal (a11), Célia Jantac (a12), Merete Nordentoft (a13) (a14), Stephan Ruhrmann (a15), Garbiele Sachs (a16), Bart P. Rutten (a17), Jim van Os (a18) (a19) (a20), Anita Riecher-Rössler (a1) and the EU-GEI High Risk Study Group (a21)...
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *