ArticleEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2025
Neurocognitive dysfunction in adolescents with recent onset major depressive disorder: a cross-sectional comparative study.
Article in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences and Rumination on Metacognition in Chinese Urban Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder.Psychology research and behavior management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the neurocognitive deficits associated with the first episode of major depressive disorder (recent onset depression, ROD) in adolescents as compared to adult patients. Cross-sectional neurocognitive data from the baseline assessments of the PRONIA study with N = 650 (55.31% females) were analyzed. Based on a principal component analysis of eleven neurocognitive tests, we constructed an overall neurocognitive performance (NP) score. We examined mean score differences in NP between the groups of healthy controls (HC) and ROD and between adolescents (15-21 years) and adults (22-40 years) within a GLM approach. This accounts for unbalanced data with focus on interaction effects while controlling for effects of medication and educational years. Our results show lower NP for the ROD as compared to the HC group (d = - 0.29, p = .046) and lower NP for the adolescent group as compared to the adult group (d = - 0.29; p < .039). There was no interaction between these two group effects (F = 1.11; p = .29). Our findings suggest that the detrimental effect of ROD on neurocognitive functioning is comparable in adolescent and adult patients, since lower scores in adolescent patients are explained by effects of age and education. Neurocognitive impairment is an under addressed issue in clinical treatment guidelines for adolescent MDD. We suggest efficient monitoring in clinical practice by using an aggregate of the Digit Symbol Substitution Test and the Trail Making Test B, which highly correlated with the overall score of NP (r = 0.82).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.