| Literature DB >> 28216430 |
Chiara Caldinelli1, Sean Froudist-Walsh1, Vyacheslav Karolis1, Chieh-En Tseng1, Matthew P Allin1, Muriel Walshe1, Marion Cuddy1, Robin M Murray1, Chiara Nosarti2.
Abstract
Very preterm birth (VPT; <32 weeks of gestation) has been associated with impairments in memory abilities and functional neuroanatomical brain alterations in medial temporal and fronto-parietal areas. Here we investigated the relationship between structural connectivity in memory-related tracts and various aspects of memory in VPT adults (mean age 19) who sustained differing degrees of perinatal brain injury (PBI), as assessed by neonatal cerebral ultrasound. We showed that the neurodevelopmental consequences of VPT birth persist into young adulthood and are associated with neonatal cranial ultrasound classification. At a cognitive level, VPT young adults showed impairments specific to effective organization of verbal information and visuospatial memory, whereas at an anatomical level they displayed reduced volume of memory-related tracts, the cingulum and the fornix, with greater alterations in those individuals who experienced high-grade PBI. When investigating the association between these tracts and memory scores, perseveration errors were associated with the volume of the fornix and dorsal cingulum (connecting medial frontal and parietal lobes). Visuospatial memory scores were associated with the volume of the ventral cingulum (connecting medial parietal and temporal lobes). These results suggest that structural connectivity alterations could underlie memory difficulties in preterm born individuals.Entities:
Keywords: Diffusion MRI; Memory; Preterm birth; Tractography
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28216430 PMCID: PMC5405171 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage ISSN: 1053-8119 Impact factor: 6.556
Participants' neonatal, socio-demographic characteristics and IQ, by group.
| 29.20 | 27.65 | 40.10 | H=7.482 | |
| p=0.006 | ||||
| 1328.22 | 1060.25 | 3310.54 | H=7.775 | |
| p=0.005 | ||||
| 35/29 | 10/10 | 26/22 | X2=2.423 | |
| p=0.659 | ||||
| 19.8 (1.24) | 19.4 (0.68) | 19.1 (1.24) | H=10.525 | |
| p=0.005 | ||||
| X2=5.292 | ||||
| p=0.507 | ||||
| 28 (43.8%) | 9 (45%) | 27 (7%) | ||
| 25 (39.1%) | 8 (40%) | 12 (25%) | ||
| 9 (14.1%) | 3 (15%) | 9 (18.8%) | ||
| 2 (3.1%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 96 | 98.47 | 105.81 | H=11.828 | |
| (12.71) | (15.98) | (13.85) | p=0.003 |
VPT-N compared to VPT-PBI.
Information was missing for 1 control participant and 2 participants from VPT-N group. Statistically significant differences were found between the VPT-N and control groups (H=21.744, p=0.008).
Parental socio-economic status (SES) was measured by the Classification of Occupation (CO80, Her Mayesty’ Stationery Office, 1980), with I as the highest and V as the lowest socio-economic group.
Statistically significant differences were found between the VPT-N and control groups (H=−23.66, p=0.003).
Figure 1A is an example of dissected tracts in a study participant: dorsal cingulum is displayed in red, ventral cingulum in sky blue and fornix in yellow. B, C and D show dorsal, frontal and lateral views, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Mean tract volume (ml) adjusted for ICV, standard deviation and statistics, by group. The white matter tracts shown are from three representative participants (one for each group).
Figure 2Mean and standard error of the mean of single tract volumes (ml, adjusted for ICV), by group.
Figure 3Mean of single tract hindrance modulated orientational anisotropy (HMOA), by group. HMOA range is 0–1, with 1 as the maximum diffusivity, and 0 as an absence of a fiber.
Mean, standard deviation and statistics of single tract FA, RD and HMOA, by group.
| 0.402139 | 0.397428 | 0.400746 | H=0.642 | ||
| (±0031012) | (±0.037708) | (±0.028266) | p=0.725 | ||
| 0.000653 | 0.0006514 | 0.0006513 | H=0.115 | ||
| (±0.000049) | (±0.000036) | (±0,000029) | p=0.944 | ||
| 0.143752 | 00.144245 | 0.137234 | H=1.737 | ||
| (±0.022135) | (±0.026135) | (±0.017665) | p=0.420 | ||
| 0.382188 | 0.392278 | 0.375755 | H=2.365 | ||
| (±0,032660) | (±0.043451) | (±0.026349) | p=0.307 | ||
| 0.000723 | 0.000711 | 0.000726 | H=1.550 | ||
| (±0.000039) | (±0.000043) | (±0.000036) | p=0.461 | ||
| 0.105668 | 0.110913 | 0.101136 | H=6.654 | ||
| (±0.012822) | (±0.015463) | (±0.012096) | p=0.036 | ||
| 0.385063 | 0.367289 | 0.394804 | H=7.253 | ||
| (±0.040337) | (±0,045410) | (±0.0042) | p=0.027 | ||
| 0.001844 | 0.000978 | 0.000986 | H=0.245 | ||
| (±0.006761) | (±0.000121) | (±0.000062) | p=0.885 | ||
| 0.109706 | 0.102931 | 0.119781 | |||
| (±0.020029) | (±0.021807) | (±0.014934) |
Not significant after FDR correction.
Significant after FDR correction.
Mean, standard deviation and statistics for selected CVLT and WMS-R measures, by group.
| 10.87 | 10.20 | 11.47 | H=1.948 | |
| (±2.77) | (±3.35) | (±2.43) | p=0.38 | |
| 11.32 | 11.35 | 12.45 | H=3.123 | |
| (±3.02) | (±3.15) | (±2.17) | p=0.21 | |
| 9.45 | 7.75 | 6.23 | ||
| (±7.21) | (±4.25) | (±5.93) | ||
| 5.89 | 6.25 | 6.55 | H=3.556 | |
| (±2.1) | (±1.41) | (±1.95) | p=0.169 | |
| 0.5 | 1.55 | 1.15 | H=6.031 | |
| (±1.47) | (±1.93) | (±1.59) | p=0.049 | |
| 0.32 | 0.55 | 0.06 | H=4.154 | |
| (±1.23) | (±1.05) | (±0.85) | p=0.125 | |
| 10.1 | 9.18 | 11.33 | H=5.212 | |
| (±3.24) | (±3.75) | (±2.26) | p=0.074 | |
| 8.82 | 7.18 | 10.46 | ||
| (±3.27) | (±3.71) | (±3) |
Significant after FDR correction.
WMS-R scores were unavailable for 3 participants belonging to the VPT-PBI group.
Figure 4Mean and standard error of the mean of selected CVLT and WMS-R scores, by group. A=Short-term memory B=Long-term memory; C=Perseverations; D=List b; E=Short-term memory strategy; F=Long-term memory strategy; G=WMS-R Copy; H=WMS-R Delay.
Significant correlations between memory measure that showed a difference between the groups and single tract volume (corrected for ICV), across all sample groups.
| r=0.112 | r=0.089 | ||
| p=0.212 | p=0.321 | ||
| r=−0.198 | |||
| p=0.024 | |||
| r=0.177 | r=0.170 | ||
| p=0.048 | p=0.056 |
Significant after FDR correction.
Figure 5Significant correlations between single tract volumes (adjusted for ICV) and cognitive measures after FDR correction.
Significant correlations between memory measure that showed a difference between the groups and single tract volume (corrected for ICV), within group.
| r=−0.222 | r=−0.291 | r=0.176 | |
| p=0. 347 | p=0.257 | p=0. 472 | |
| r=−0.119 | r=0.053 | r=−0.010 | |
| p=0.616 | p=0. 840 | p=0.969 | |
| r=−0.053 | r=0.065 | r=0.204 | |
| p=0.824 | p=0. 803 | p=0.403 | |
| r=−0.163 | r=0.102 | r=0.103 | |
| p=0. 207 | p=0.429 | p=0.428 | |
| r=0.065 | r=0.187 | r=0.128 | |
| p=0.616 | p=0. 147 | p=0.325 | |
| r=−0.278 | r=0.380 | r=−0.028 | |
| p=0.028 | p=0.766 | p=0.828 | |
| r=−0.075 | r=−0.078 | ||
| p=0.619 | p=0.604 | ||
| r=−0.130 | r=0.315 | ||
| p=0.388 | p=0.031 | ||
| r=−0.279 | r=−0.043 | r=0.077 | |
| p=0.058 | p=0. 774 | p=0.606 |
Significant after FDR correction.