| Literature DB >> 28123951 |
Eva Výtvarová1, Radek Mareček2, Jan Fousek1, Ondřej Strýček3, Ivan Rektor3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to describe the contribution of basal ganglia (BG) thalamo-cortical circuitry to the whole-brain functional connectivity in focal epilepsies.Entities:
Keywords: Epilepsy; Functional connectivity; Functional magnetic resonance imaging; Network analysis; Partial least square analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28123951 PMCID: PMC5222946 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.12.014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Subjects' characteristics.
| Number of subjects | Age | Gender (males/females) | Disease duration | Seizure frequency | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controls | 20 | 14/6 | – | – | |
| LTLE | 9 | 2/7 | |||
| RTLE | 13 | 5/8 | |||
| FLE | 15 | 10/5 | |||
| POLE | 9 | 4/5 |
LT/RT/F/PO LE … left temporal/right temporal/frontal/parietal or occipital lobe epilepsy.
Median; range.
Data from 13 subjects available.
Fig. 1Global level properties of examined groups, AAL atlas. Asterisks indicate statistical difference (p < 0.05, FDR corrected) in a given property.
Regional differences between patients with epilepsy and controls. C (clustering coefficient), w (node strength), EC (eigenvector centrality). p < 0.05, FDR corrected. i indicates an increase in the patient group compared to controls, d means a decrease in a given property and region of interest. Results significant after FDR correction to 90 ROIs of the AAL atlas are marked by asterisks.
| LTLE vs. controls | RTLE vs. controls | FLE vs. controls | POLE vs. controls | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frontal Sup Orb (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Frontal Mid (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Frontal Inf Orb (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| Frontal Inf Orb (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Olfactory (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Olfactory (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Cingulum Post (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Cingulum Post (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Parahippocampal (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||||
| Amygdala (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Amygdala (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||
| Calcarine (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Calcarine (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Lingual (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||||
| Lingual (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Occipital Inf (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||||
| Occipital Inf (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||||
| Fusiform (L) | – | – | ||||||||||
| Fusiform (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||||
| Angular (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Precuneus (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||
| Precuneus (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||
| Caudate (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| Caudate (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||
| Pallidum (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Thalamus (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Thalamus (R) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Temporal Inf (L) | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||||||
| Temporal Inf (R) | – | – | – | – | ||||||||
Fig. 2The difference in functional connectivity between controls and a) LTLE patients, b) FLE patients, c) POLE patients. The warm/cold colors within the triangular graph depicts the Z-scores of the significantly contributing saliences u, i.e. the ROI pairs with significantly higher (cold colors) or lower (warm colors) functional connectivity in patients than in healthy controls. The significance level was set to p < 0.05, corrected for multiple testing. The whisker plot shows the saliences v, i.e. the difference between respective groups. The difference is significant at p < 0.05 for all three comparisons. The bar graphs show the percentage of affected connections either between subcortical and cortical areas (subcor – cor) or between cortical and cortical areas (cor – cor). Fr/Ci/Me/Oc/Pa/Su/Te stands for frontal/cingulate/mesiotemporal/occipital/parietal/subcortical/temporal areas.
Fig. 3Comparison of average node strength (negative correlations in absolute values) for subcortical areas as a function of applied threshold for controls and patient groups. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are indicated by horizontal bars in incident colors.