| Literature DB >> 28149942 |
Joey A Contreras1, Joaquín Goñi2, Shannon L Risacher3, Enrico Amico4, Karmen Yoder5, Mario Dzemidzic6, John D West3, Brenna C McDonald7, Martin R Farlow8, Olaf Sporns9, Andrew J Saykin10.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pathophysiological changes that accompany early clinical symptoms in prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) may have a disruptive influence on brain networks. We investigated resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rsfMRI), combined with brain connectomics, to assess changes in whole-brain functional connectivity (FC) in relation to neurocognitive variables.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer's disease; Connectome; Functional connectivity; MRI; Memory; Mild cognitive impairment; Subjective cognitive decline
Year: 2016 PMID: 28149942 PMCID: PMC5266473 DOI: 10.1016/j.dadm.2016.12.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) ISSN: 2352-8729
Demographics
| CN | SCD | MCI | AD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 13 | 16 | 21 | 8 | – |
| Mean age (y) | 67.15 (5.50) | 73.38 (7.95) | 73.33 (8.98) | 76.38 (8.98) | NS |
| Gender (M/F) | 1/12 | 8/8 | 9/13 | 2/6 | NS |
| Mean education (y) | 17.32 (1.93) | 17.38 (1.9) | 16 (2.8) | 16.13 (3.7) | NS |
| Mean CVLT-delayed (episodic memory) | 44.21 (7.66) | 43.59 (7.41) | 29.56 (8.1) | 9.25 (11.75) | <.05 |
| Mean WCST—# of categories (executive function) | 4.1 (1.19) | 3.5 (1.41) | 2.67 (1.49) | 1.17 (0.41) | <.05 |
| Mean subject CCI score | 9.97 (4.54) | 27.92 (16.01) | 20.85 (11.76) | 51.29 (28.38) | <.05 |
| Mean informant CCI score | 7.7 (11.46) | 15.82 (13.41) | 14.54 (16.1) | N/A | <.05 |
Abbreviations: CN, cognitively normal; SCD, subjective cognitive decline; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; AD, Alzheimer's disease; NS, not significant; CVLT, California Verbal Learning Test; WCST, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; CCI, cognitive complaint index; N/A, not applicable.
NOTE. The participants of this study were selected from a larger Indiana Memory and Aging Study cohort. Above are the listed means and standard deviations within each group for selected demographic and neurocognitive variables. Between-group differences in age, education, and cognitive variables were tested using a one-way analysis of variance, while chi-squared test was used to detect gender differences between groups.
One-way ANOVA.
Chi-squared.
Neurocognitive variables of interest
| Assessment | Brain region affected | Effect in AD | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST)—# of categories | Frontal lobe: dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex; parietal lobe | Executive function declines with the disease progression | Stimulus cards are presented, and the participant is told to match the cards, but not how to do the matching |
| California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT)-II | Medial temporal lobe: hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, etc.; precuneus; medial prefrontal cortex | MCI: loss of both immediate and delayed episodic memory recall; AD: episodic memory is devastated | 16 nouns read aloud over five learning trials. After each trial, the subject is asked to recall as many words as they can in any order—then again after a delay |
| Cognitive complaint index (CCI) score (Saykin et al., Neurology. 2006) | Negative correlation with the hippocampal volume (Saykin et al., 2006) | Early-stage patients have many complaints. As AD progresses, complaints decrease due to loss of cognitive awareness | Combined score across multiple assessments that allows participant (self) or informant to subjectively rate cognitive function; CCImax: the higher complaint score either self- or informant-provided |
Abbreviations: AD, Alzheimer's disease; MCI, mild cognitive impairment.
NOTE. The following variables were included in the multilinear regression model as independent variables: (1) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test score to evaluate executive function; (2) CVLT II-delayed score to measure episodic memory, (3) cognitive complaint index score allowing either the participant or a trusted informant to subjectively rate cognitive function. Also listed are affected brain regions, effects in AD, and more details about each score measure.
Fig. 1Connectivity independent component analysis (connICA) methodology. Individual functional connectivity (FC) matrices are concatenated into a group matrix where each row corresponds to one subject and columns are the functional connectivity entries in the FC matrix. FastICA extracts components (i.e., FC patterns) associated to the cohort and their relative weights across subjects. Color bars indicate positive (red) and negative (blue) values; Pearson correlation coefficient values for individual FC matrices (left side of figure) and unit-less connectivity weights for the FC patterns (right side of figure).
Fig. 2Robust FC patterns and individual weights as obtained by connICA. (A) Visualization of the FC patterns sorted according to Yeo et al. (2011) functional RSNs. (B) Lines represent the quantified presence of each FC pattern on each individual's functional connectome (across all runs), termed as “weights.” All 58 subjects are represented along the x axis and ordered according to subjects with high presence of the corresponding FC pattern within their functional connectome to those with low presence of the FC pattern within their functional connectome. Additionally, each colored line represents a single ICA run.
Significance values for multilinear regression models
| Model tested | F-value for model | t-Value for predictor | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSN model | 3.40 | .015* | – | – |
| Age | – | – | −1.69 | .097 |
| Gender | – | – | 0.29 | .773 |
| Education | – | – | 0.55 | .582 |
| CCI-self | – | – | −2.39 | .020* |
| VIS model | 1.35 | .267 | – | – |
| Age | – | – | 0.44 | .659 |
| Gender | – | – | 0.84 | .407 |
| Education | – | – | −0.6 | .550 |
| CCImax | – | – | 2.04 | .047* |
| FP-DMN model | 1.96 | .116 | – | – |
| Age | – | – | −0.23 | .823 |
| Gender | – | – | 0.63 | .535 |
| Education | – | – | 2.47 | .017* |
| CVLT delayed | – | – | 0.27 | .791 |
NOTE. Table shows significantly predictive multilinear regression models for the three FC patterns.
NOTE. Variables included show added significance to individual models. Significance denoted by asterisk (P < .05).
Fig. 3Relationship of FC patterns and neurocognitive variables of interest. Visualization of the three identified FC patterns (top row). The contributions of neurocognitive variables of interest showing significant increase of the baseline R2 value in the multiple regression models are presented in the bar plots (middle row). A grouped bar plot where black bars indicate the baseline (only age, gender, and education) R2 value, while the hatched patterned bars indicate when an individual neurocognitive variable of interest has been added. The standard error bars were calculated across the 100 ICA runs. R2 value is shown above the cognitive variable that has the greatest increase from the baseline R2 value. The scatter plots (bottom row) show actual versus model-predicted subject weights with different symbols indicating group membership. The multilinear regression models include age, gender, education, and one of the neurocognitive variables of interest. The three columns illustrate the relationships of (A) RSN-pattern and CCI-self score; (B) VIS-pattern and CCImax score, and (C) FP-DMN pattern and CVLT score. These relationships are further detailed in the Results section. Significance denoted by asterisk (P < .05).