| Literature DB >> 27722087 |
Weihong Yuan1, Artur Meller2, Joshua S Shimony3, Tiffany Nash2, Blaise V Jones1, Scott K Holland1, Mekibib Altaye4, Holly Barnard5, Jannel Phillips5, Stephanie Powell6, Robert C McKinstry3, David D Limbrick7, Akila Rajagopal2, Francesco T Mangano8.
Abstract
Neuroimaging research in surgically treated pediatric hydrocephalus patients remains challenging due to the artifact caused by programmable shunt. Our previous study has demonstrated significant alterations in the whole brain white matter structural connectivity based on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and graph theoretical analysis in children with hydrocephalus prior to surgery or in surgically treated children without programmable shunts. This study seeks to investigate the impact of brain injury on the topological features in the left hemisphere, contratelateral to the shunt placement, which will avoid the influence of shunt artifacts and makes further group comparisons feasible for children with programmable shunt valves. Three groups of children (34 in the control group, 12 in the 3-month post-surgery group, and 24 in the 12-month post-surgery group, age between 1 and 18 years) were included in the study. The structural connectivity data processing and analysis were performed based on DTI and graph theoretical analysis. Specific procedures were revised to include only left brain imaging data in normalization, parcellation, and fiber counting from DTI tractography. Our results showed that, when compared to controls, children with hydrocephalus in both the 3-month and 12-month post-surgery groups had significantly lower normalized clustering coefficient, lower small-worldness, and higher global efficiency (all p < 0.05, corrected). At a regional level, both patient groups showed significant alteration in one or more regional connectivity measures in a series of brain regions in the left hemisphere (8 and 10 regions in the 3-month post-surgery and the 12-month post-surgery group, respectively, all p < 0.05, corrected). No significant correlation was found between any of the global or regional measures and the contemporaneous neuropsychological outcomes [the General Adaptive Composite (GAC) from the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Second Edition (ABAS-II)]. However, one global network measure (global efficiency) and two regional network measures in the insula (local efficiency and between centrality) tested at 3-month post-surgery were found to correlate with GAC score tested at 12-month post-surgery with statistical significance (all p < 0.05, corrected). Our data showed that the structural connectivity analysis based on DTI and graph theory was sensitive in detecting both global and regional network abnormality when the analysis was conducted in the left hemisphere only. This approach provides a new avenue enabling the application of advanced neuroimaging analysis methods in quantifying brain damage in children with hydrocephalus surgically treated with programmable shunts.Entities:
Keywords: DTI, diffusion tensor imaging; Diffusion tensor imaging; Graph theoretical analysis; Left hemisphere; Pediatric hydrocephalus; ROI, region of interest; Small-worldness
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27722087 PMCID: PMC5048110 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.09.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Fig. 1Example of MRI artifact from programmable shunt valve and the removal of the right hemisphere (along with the artifact) for subsequent data analysis. A. T1-w image with shunt artifact. B. b0 DTI image with shunt artifact; C. b0 DTI image of left hemisphere after the removal of right hemisphere image; D. the results of brain segmentation using let hemisphere alone.
HCP patients at 3-month post-surgery, cross-sectional comparisons of regional network measures with the Control Group. Regional network measures include nodal degree, betweenness centrality, clustering coefficient, and nodal efficiency. All regional network values are the area under curve over the network density range between 0.2 and 0.4 (at interval of 0.01) using residual value of network measure based on linear regression to account for age factor at each density level. All p values are FDR corrected across the four network measures and 31 nodes in the network to minimize false positive findings resulting from multiple comparisons. Only those nodes that showed significant group difference in one or more measures are included.
| Region | Degree | Betweenness centrality | Clustering coefficient | Local Efficiency | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTL | 3 m Post-Surgery | t (corrected p) | CTL | 3 m post-surgery | t (corrected p) | CTL | 3 m post-surgery | t (corrected p) | CTL | 3 m post-surgery | t (corrected p) | |
| Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | |||||
| SPG | 0.000 ± 0.825 | 1.149 ± 1.066 | 3.84 (0.0069) | 0.000 ± 0.016 | 0.034 ± 0.055 | 3.29 (0.0222) | 0.000 ± 0.024 | − 0.011 ± 0.030 | − 1.24 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.015 | − 0.007 ± 0.022 | − 1.35 (ns) |
| CingG | 0.000 ± 0.376 | 1.063 ± 1.050 | 5.12 (0.0004) | 0.000 ± 0.010 | 0.024 ± 0.032 | 3.85 (0.0078) | 0.000 ± 0.019 | 0.016 ± 0.034 | 2.00 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.016 | 0.012 ± 0.023 | 1.88 (ns) |
| MFG | 0.000 ± 0.771 | − 1.117 ± 0.985 | − 4.01 (0.0057) | 0.000 ± 0.009 | − 0.008 ± 0.011 | − 2.39 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.038 | 0.024 ± 0.044 | 1.81 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.020 | 0.010 ± 0.019 | 1.49 (ns) |
| MOG | 0.000 ± 0.675 | − 1.171 ± 1.543 | − 3.60 (0.0099) | 0.000 ± 0.022 | − 0.030 ± 0.020 | − 4.13 (0.0049) | 0.000 ± 0.022 | 0.078 ± 0.120 | 3.67 (0.0089) | 0.000 ± 0.014 | 0.009 ± 0.063 | 0.78 (ns) |
| Ins | 0.000 ± 0.474 | 0.472 ± 0.774 | 2.50 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.005 | 0.009 ± 0.012 | 3.70 (0.0092) | 0.000 ± 0.024 | − 0.020 ± 0.027 | − 2.44 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.013 | − 0.011 ± 0.014 | − 2.59 (0.095) |
| Amyg | 0.000 ± 0.484 | 0.278 ± 0.567 | 1.64 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.004 | − 0.001 ± 0.002 | − 0.84 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.075 | 0.102 ± 0.133 | 3.27 (0.0214) | 0.000 ± 0.085 | 0.103 ± 0.124 | 3.19 (0.025) |
| Caud | 0.000 ± 0.627 | 0.660 ± 1.756 | 1.90 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.004 | 0.006 ± 0.010 | 2.91 (0.04978) | 0.000 ± 0.082 | − 0.060 ± 0.121 | − 1.92 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.080 | − 0.052 ± 0.124 | − 1.65 (ns) |
| Thal | 0.000 ± 0.758 | − 2.007 ± 1.095 | − 6.99 (< 0.0001) | 0.000 ± 0.023 | − 0.036 ± 0.019 | − 4.81 (0.0007) | 0.000 ± 0.024 | 0.018 ± 0.090 | 1.08 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.027 | − 0.019 ± 0.088 | − 1.15 (ns) |
Fig. 2Example of individual participant's network connectivity index (global efficiency of a child with hydrocephalus at 12-month post-surgery) as a function of network density over the range between 0.2 and 0.4. The residual value of the variable after regressing out the age factor was first calculated at each density threshold. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated by integrating the residual value of the connectivity index across the range of network density. The AUC of the individual was used in the subsequent group analyses.
Fig. 3Characteristics of small-worldness in left hemisphere network in the three study groups. A. Gamma (normalized clustering coefficient); B. lambda (normalized characteristic path length); C. sigma (small-worldness).
Cross-sectional comparisons of global network measures between HCP patients at 3-month post-injury and the controls and between HCP patients at 12-month post-surgery and the controls. All network values are the area under curve over the network density range between 0.2 and 0.4 (at interval of 0.01) using residual value of network measure based on linear regression to account for age factor at each density level. All p values are FDR corrected to minimize false positive findings resulting from multiple comparisons.
| Global network measures | CTL | 3 m post-surgery HCP | 12 m post-surgery HCP | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (AUC of residual value) | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | df | t | Mean ± std | df | t | ||
| γ | 0.0000 ± 0.0321 | − 0.0392 ± 0.0412 | 44 | − 3.38 | 0.0038 | − 0.0243 ± 0.0263 | 56 | − 3.06 | 0.0086 |
| λ | 0.0000 ± 0.0054 | − 0.0026 ± 0.0060 | 44 | − 1.40 | ns | − 0.0025 ± 0.0047 | 56 | − 1.82 | 0.0930 |
| σ | 0.0000 ± 0.0296 | − 0.0348 ± 0.0338 | 44 | − 3.37 | 0.0026 | − 0.0203 ± 0.0229 | 56 | − 4.67 | 0.0113 |
| Eglob | 0.0000 ± 0.0037 | 0.0121 ± 0.0031 | 44 | 10.11 | < 0.0001 | 0.0121 ± 0.0030 | 56 | 13.11 | < 0.0001 |
| MOD | 0.0000 ± 0.0076 | − 0.0048 ± 0.0083 | 44 | − 1.83 | 0.0933 | − 0.0020 ± 0.0082 | 56 | 0.98 | NS |
Note: AUC = area under curve; γ = normalized clustering coefficient; λ = normalized characteristic path length; σ = small-worldness; Eglob = global efficiency; MOD = modularity. ns = not significant. CTL = control; HCP = hydrocephalus.
p value < 0.05.
HCP patients at 12-month post-surgery, cross-sectional comparisons of regional network measures with the Control Group. Regional network measures include nodal degree, betweenness centrality, clustering coefficient, and nodal efficiency. All regional network values are the area under curve over the network density range between 0.2 and 0.4 (at interval of 0.01) using residual value of network measure based on linear regression to account for age factor at each density level. All p values are FDR corrected across the four network measures and 31 nodes in the network to minimize false positive findings resulting from multiple comparisons. Only those nodes that showed significant group difference in one or more measures are included.
| Region | Degree | Betweenness centrality | Clustering coefficient | Local efficiency | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTL | 12 m post-surgery | t (corrected p) | CTL | 12 m post-surgery | t (corrected p) | CTL | 12 m post-surgery | t (corrected p) | CTL | 12 m post-surgery | t (corrected p) | |
| Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | Mean ± std | |||||
| SPG | 0.000 ± 0.825 | 0.632 ± 1.143 | 2.45 (0.0772) | 0.000 ± 0.016 | 0.022 ± 0.039 | 3.00 (0.0313) | 0.000 ± 0.024 | 0.001 ± 0.036 | 0.11 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.015 | − 0.001 ± 0.023 | − 0.16 (ns) |
| CingG | 0.000 ± 0.376 | 0.961 ± 0.906 | 5.56 (< 0.0001) | 0.000 ± 0.010 | 0.021 ± 0.023 | 4.79 (0.0004) | 0.000 ± 0.019 | 0.009 ± 0.022 | 1.69 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.016 | 0.009 ± 0.016 | 2.17 (ns) |
| SFG | 0.000 ± 0.927 | − 0.902 ± 0.854 | − 3.77 (0.0049) | 0.000 ± 0.029 | − 0.017 ± 0.027 | − 2.34 (0.0946) | 0.000 ± 0.015 | 0.023 ± 0.033 | 3.58 (0.0081) | 0.000 ± 0.010 | 0.013 ± 0.022 | 2.94 (0.031) |
| MFG | 0.000 ± 0.771 | − 0.688 ± 1.008 | − 2.95 (0.0323) | 0.000 ± 0.009 | − 0.002 ± 0.012 | − 0.76 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.038 | 0.016 ± 0.041 | 1.56 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.020 | 0.006 ± 0.024 | 0.99 (ns) |
| MOG | 0.000 ± 0.675 | − 0.665 ± 1.109 | − 2.84 (0.0358) | 0.000 ± 0.022 | − 0.019 ± 0.024 | − 3.10 (0.0265) | 0.000 ± 0.022 | 0.031 ± 0.034 | 4.21 (0.0023) | 0.000 ± 0.014 | 0.018 ± 0.020 | 4.01 (0.004) |
| Amyg | 0.000 ± 0.484 | 0.526 ± 0.540 | 3.89 (0.0037) | 0.000 ± 0.004 | 0.002 ± 0.007 | 1.40 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.075 | 0.091 ± 0.103 | 3.90 (0.0040) | 0.000 ± 0.085 | 0.098 ± 0.105 | 3.91 (0.004) |
| Hippo | 0.000 ± 0.458 | 0.494 ± 0.849 | 2.86 (0.0351) | 0.000 ± 0.014 | 0.005 ± 0.015 | 1.28 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.041 | − 0.005 ± 0.055 | − 0.41 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.040 | − 0.006 ± 0.047 | − 0.52 (ns) |
| Caud | 0.000 ± 0.627 | 0.908 ± 1.581 | 3.04 (0.0300) | 0.000 ± 0.004 | 0.010 ± 0.020 | 2.89 (0.0341) | 0.000 ± 0.082 | − 0.073 ± 0.076 | − 3.44 (0.0115) | 0.000 ± 0.080 | − 0.055 ± 0.086 | − 2.47 (0.076) |
| Put | 0.000 ± 0.613 | 0.051 ± 1.089 | 0.23 (ns) | 0.000 ± 0.008 | 0.010 ± 0.016 | 3.18 (0.0231) | 0.000 ± 0.034 | − 0.030 ± 0.059 | − 2.42 (0.0802) | 0.000 ± 0.033 | − 0.032 ± 0.063 | − 2.52 (0.070) |
| Thal | 0.000 ± 0.758 | − 1.741 ± 1.408 | − 6.08 (< 0.0001) | 0.000 ± 0.023 | − 0.033 ± 0.024 | − 5.21 (0.0001) | 0.000 ± 0.024 | 0.023 ± 0.043 | 2.62 (0.0609) | 0.000 ± 0.027 | − 0.007 ± 0.045 | − 0.73 (ns) |
Fig. 4Correlation between global efficiency at 3-months post-surgery and developmental outcome measure (ABAS-II GAC) tested at 12 m post-surgery.
Fig. 5Correlation between regional network measures at 3 months post-surgery and developmental outcome measures at 12 m post-surgery. A. Eloc in Insular vs. ABAS-II GAC; B. betweenness centrality in insular vs. GAC.