| Literature DB >> 25165713 |
Gang Zheng1, Liping Zhang2, Long Jiang Zhang3, Qiang Li4, Zhiying Pan1, Xue Liang3, Donghong Shi3, Guang Ming Lu3.
Abstract
Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) is associated with changes in functional connectivity. To investigate the patterns of modular changes of the functional connectivity in the progression of MHE, resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging was acquired in 24 MHE patients, 31 cirrhotic patients without minimal hepatic encephalopathy (non-HE), and 38 healthy controls. Newman's metric, the modularity Q value, was maximized and compared in three groups. Topological roles with the progression of MHE were illustrated by intra- and intermodular connectivity changes. Results showed that the Q value of MHE patients was significantly lower than that of controls (P < 0.01) rather than that of non-HE patients (P > 0.05), which was correlated with neuropsychological test scores rather than the ammonia level and Child-Pugh score. Less intrasubcortical connections and more isolated subcortical modules were found with the progression of MHE. The non-HE patients had the same numbers of connect nodes as controls and had more hubs compared with MHE patients and healthy controls. Our findings supported that both intra- and intermodular connectivity, especially those related to subcortical regions, were continuously impaired in cirrhotic patients. The adjustments of hubs and connector nodes in non-HE patients could be a compensation for the decreased modularity in their functional connectivity networks.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25165713 PMCID: PMC4066720 DOI: 10.1155/2014/727452
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Demographical and clinical data of the healthy controls and cirrhotic patients.
| Variable | Healthy controls ( | non-HE patients ( | MHE patients ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Y) | 48.6 ± 12.7 | 46.6 ± 10.2 | 52.3 ± 9.2 | 0.187∣ |
| Gender (M/F) | 25/13 | 24/7 | 19/5 | 0.411~ |
| NCT-A (s)∗# | 45.1 ± 12.7 | 42.7 ± 9.6 | 69.5 ± 17.4 |
|
| DST (score)∗#$ | 49.8 ± 9.8 | 42.5 ± 9.6 | 25.6 ± 7.7 |
|
| Posthepatitic cirrhosis ( | — | 21 | 17 | — |
| Biliary cirrhosis ( | — | 3 | 3 | — |
| Schistosomal cirrhosis ( | — | 0 | 1 | — |
| Alcoholic cirrhosis ( | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| Budd-Chiari syndrome ( | — | 1 | 0 | — |
| Unknown aetiology ( | — | 5 | 2 | — |
| Child-Pugh scores (score) | — | 6.4 ± 1.5 | 6.8 ± 1.7 | 0.40! |
| Child-Pugh scale (A/B/C) | — | 20/10/1 | 11/12/1 | — |
| Ammonia level (umol/L)@ | — | 52.8 ± 34.6 ( | 61.2 ± 28.8 ( | 0.398! |
Values are mean ± SD or number of patients; MHE: minimal hepatic encephalopathy; NCT-A: number connection test type A; DST: digit symbol test.
@Ammonia is obtained in 19 MHE patients and 26 non-HE patients.
!stands for the results of two-sample t-test.
∣stands for the result of the one-way ANOVA.
~stands for the result of the Chi-Square test.
*stands for significant difference between MHE and non-HE patients (post hoc P <0.05, Bonferroni-corrected).
#stands for significant difference between MHE patients and controls (post hoc P <0.05, Bonferroni-corrected).
$stands for significant differences between non-HE patients and controls (post hoc P <0.05, Bonferroni-corrected).
Figure 1The network modularity Q values of healthy controls, non-HE and MHE patients from sparsity of 5% to sparsity of 10% at 1% intervals.
Correlations between the modularity Q values and the venous ammonia level, Child-Pugh score, and neuropsychological test scores.
| Sparsity | 5% | 6% | 7% | 8% | 9% | 10% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT-A (s)a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DST (score)a | − | − | − | −0.194 | −0.148 | −0.201 |
| Child-Pugh scoreb | −0.072 | −0.086 | −0.078 | −0.022 | 0.034 | 0.035 |
| Ammonia level (umol/L)b | 0.050 | −0.006 | −0.051 | 0.054 | 0.065 | 0.047 |
NCT-A: number connection test type A; DST: digit symbol test.
aCorrelations were performed in all subjects.
bCorrelations were performed in cirrhotic patients.
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.
Figure 2The total numbers of modules of healthy controls, non-HE and MHE groups from sparsity of 5% to sparsity of 10% at 1% intervals.
Figure 3The community structures of healthy control, non-HE and MHE groups for mean functional networks at sparsity of 8%. (a) The community structure of healthy control group; (b) the community structure of non-HE group; (c) the community structure of MHE group.
Figure 4The node roles of healthy control, non-HE and MHE groups. (a) The node role of healthy control group; (b) the node role of non-HE group; (c) the node role of MHE group.