| Literature DB >> 28248991 |
Gaia Olivo1, Lyle Wiemerslage1, Ingemar Swenne2, Christina Zhukowsky1, Helena Salonen-Ros3, Elna-Marie Larsson4, Santino Gaudio1,5, Samantha J Brooks6, Helgi B Schiöth1.
Abstract
Few studies have used diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to investigate the micro-structural alterations of WM in patients with restrictive eating disorders (rED), and longitudinal data are lacking. Twelve patients with rED were scanned at diagnosis and after one year of family-based treatment, and compared to twenty-four healthy controls (HCs) through DTI analysis. A tract-based spatial statistics procedure was used to investigate diffusivity parameters: fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean, radial and axial diffusivities (MD, RD and AD, respectively). Reduced FA and increased RD were found in patients at baseline in the corpus callosum, corona radiata and posterior thalamic radiation compared with controls. However, no differences were found between follow-up patients and controls, suggesting a partial normalization of the diffusivity parameters. In patients, trends for a negative correlation were found between the baseline FA of the right anterior corona radiata and the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire total score, while a positive trend was found between the baseline FA in the splenium of corpus callosum and the weight loss occurred between maximal documented weight and time of admission. A positive trend for correlation was also found between baseline FA in the right anterior corona radiata and the decrease in the Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory Revised total score over time. Our results suggest that the integrity of the limbic-thalamo-cortical projections and the reward-related circuitry are important for cognitive control processes and reward responsiveness in regulating eating behavior.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28248991 PMCID: PMC5332028 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172129
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Clinical and demographic data of the patients.
| Baseline | Follow-up | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pt | Age | BMI (Kg/m2) | Weight loss (Kg) | BMI SDS | Menstruations | DSM-IV/ DSM-5 diagnosis | Diagnosis during treatment | Weight increase (Kg) | BMI (Kg/m2) | BMI SDS | DSM-IV/DSM-5 diagnosis |
| 1 | 15 | 20.0 | 4.0 | 0.1 | secondary amenorrhea | EDNOS/OSFED | 4.0 | 21.3 | 0.4 | no ED/no ED | |
| 2 | 15 | 15.7 | 5.2 | -2.4 | menstruations | EDNOS/AN | 7.2 | 18.2 | 1.2 | EDNOS/OSFED | |
| 3 | 17 | 17.8 | 10.5 | -1.7 | secondary amenorrhea | EDNOS/OSFED | 6.1 | 19.8 | -0.7 | no ED/no ED | |
| 4 | 17 | 21.3 | 15.8 | 0.2 | menstruations | EDNOS/OSFED | 1.4 | 21.4 | 0.0 | EDNOS/OSFED | |
| 5 | 13 | 18.4 | 1.4 | -0.2 | menstruations | EDNOS/OSFED | -1.5 | 17.6 | -1.0 | EDNOS/OSFED | |
| 6 | 16 | 21.2 | 5.1 | 0.3 | hormonal contraceptives | EDNOS/OSFED | 8.1 | 23.3 | 0.9 | no ED/no ED | |
| 7 | 13 | 13.5 | 9.0 | -0.4 | premenarche | EDNOS/OSFED | 13.3 | 18.0 | -0.5 | no ED/no ED | |
| 8 | 16 | 16.6 | 21.8 | -2.0 | secondary amenorrhea | AN/AN | 19.2 | 23.9 | 1.1 | no ED/no ED | |
| 9 | 13 | 17.9 | missing | -0.9 | menstruations | EDNOS/OSFED | 6.4 | 20.2 | 0.2 | no ED/no ED | |
| 10 | 14 | 24.9 | 2.4 | 1.7 | menstruations | EDNOS/OSFED | 5.2 | 26.8 | 2.1 | no ED/no ED | |
| 11 | 17 | 18.5 | 7.7 | -1.2 | menstruations | EDNOS/OSFED | 5.3 | 20.3 | -0.5 | no ED/no ED | |
| 12 | 14 | 18.1 | 12.6 | -0.7 | secondary amenorrhea | EDNOS/OSFED | 12.0 | 22.2 | 0.8 | EDNOS/OSFED | |
BMI: Body Mass Index; SDS: Standard Deviation Score; DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Groups characteristics.
| Patients at baseline (mean) | Controls at baseline (mean) | Patients at follow-up (mean) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15.3 | 14.1 | 16.4 | |
| 18.7 | 20.6 | 21.1 | |
| 3.7 | 0.8 | 2.1 | |
| 35.6 | 9.4 | 25.9 |
BMI: body mass index; EDE-Q: Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire; OCI-R: Obsessive-compulsive Inventory Revised
Fractional anisotropy baseline assessment.
| Extent (vox) | Side | Structure |
|---|---|---|
| 811 | Genu of corpus callosum | |
| 584 | Body of corpus callosum | |
| 261 | Splenium of corpus callosum | |
| 609 | R | Anterior corona radiata |
| 537 | L | Anterior corona radiata |
| 598 | R | Superior corona radiata |
| 270 | L | Superior corona radiata |
| 315 | R | Posterior corona radiata |
| 121 | R | Posterior thalamic radiation |
| 27 | R | Tapetum |
Radial diffusivity baseline assessment.
| Extent (vox) | Side | Structure |
|---|---|---|
| 772 | Genu of corpus callosum | |
| 1049 | Body of corpus callosum | |
| 286 | Splenium of corpus callosum | |
| 426 | R | Anterior corona radiata |
| 310 | L | Anterior corona radiata |
| 566 | R | Superior corona radiata |
| 272 | L | Superior corona radiata |
| 273 | R | Posterior corona radiata |
| 24 | L | Posterior corona radiata |
| 58 | R | Posterior thalamic radiation |
| 20 | R | Tapetum |
Fig 1Baseline differences in fractional anisotropy between patients and controls.
The figure reports axial slices showing the tracts of WM where a significant difference in fractional anisotropy was found between baseline patients and controls at the TBSS analysis. A permutation-based test was used, with the number of permutation set at 10000. The threshold for significance was set at p < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparison with a threshold-free cluster enhancement approach. The WM tracts are superimposed to the FMRIB58_FA standard provided with FSL.
Fig 2Baseline differences in radial diffusivity between patients and controls.
The figure reports axial slices showing the tracts of WM where a significant difference in radial diffusivity, calculated as the mean of the second and third eigenvalues, was found between baseline patients and controls at the TBSS analysis. A permutation-based test was used, with the number of permutation set at 10000. The threshold for significance was set at p < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparison with a threshold-free cluster enhancement approach. The WM tracts are superimposed to the FMRIB58_FA standard provided with FSL.
Fig 3Between-groups differences in FA values.
The scatterplots report the FA values of the structures were differences were found between the patients at baseline and controls. The three most extensively involved structure are reported. CC = Corpus Callosum, ACR = Anterior Corona Radiata, bl = baseline, fl = follow-up.
Clinical-imaging correlations.
| EDE-Q | Right anterior corona radiata | -0.673 | 0.02 |
| OCI-R % decrease | Right anterior corona radiata | -0.667 | 0.05 |
| Weight loss | Splenium of corpus callosum | -0.700 | 0.02 |
| BMI | Genu of corpus callosum | -0.455 | 0.03 |
| BMI | Body of corpus callosum | -0.458 | 0.02 |
| BMI | Left anterior corona radiata | -0.443 | 0.03 |