| Literature DB >> 29190979 |
Xiaopeng Hu1, Xia Zhou2, Chao Zhang2, Haibao Wang1, Yongqiang Yu1, Zhongwu Sun2.
Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have revealed group differences in the frontal area between the subcortical vascular cognition impairment (SVCI) patients and the controls. However, most of the existing research focused on average differences between the two groups, and therefore had limited clinical applicability. The aim of our study was to investigate whether inter-regions functional connectivity of the dorsal frontal cortex (DFC) can be used to discriminate the SVCI from the controls at the level of the individual. Thirty-two SVCI patients and 32 demographically similar healthy individuals underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. The DFC, derived from a prior atlas, was divided into 10 clusters. Features based on DFC were obtained through functional connectivity analysis between pairs of DFC. A nonlinear kernel support vector machine was used for classification and validated using 8-fold cross validation. An excellent classification accuracy was obtained from both the left and the right DFC functional connectivity (accuracy=75.07%, sensitivity=81.57% and specificity=61.71%; accuracy=45.38%, sensitivity=60.74% and specificity=39.48%; P<0.001). These findings shed further light on the pathogenesis of SVCI and showed promising classification performance using machine learning analysis based on DFC fMRI data, which may be useful for the differentiation of SVCI.Entities:
Keywords: dorsal frontal cortex; multivariate pattern analysis; subcortical; vascular cognition impairment
Year: 2017 PMID: 29190979 PMCID: PMC5696245 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.21855
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Demographic and clinical characteristic of SVCI patients and healthy controls
| Variables | SVCI (n=32) | Controls (n=32) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Years) | 70.09±8.26 | 68.87±7.05 | 0.557b | |
| Gender (F/M) | 18/14 | 14/18 | 0.454a | |
| Years of education | 8.47±3.16 | 10.09±2.98 | 0.670b | |
| CAMCOG-C | 76.78±9.26 | 92.83±4.63 | 0.002b | |
| praxis | 8.75±2.37 | 11.28±0.92 | <0.001b | |
| MMSE | 23.78±2.66 | 28.38±1.10 | <0.001b | |
| ADL | 25.47±7.42 | 20.19±0.59 | <0.001b | |
| CDR | 0.5(0.5-2.0) | 0 | <0.001c |
MMSE=Mini-Mental State Examination; CAMCOG-C=Cambridge Cognitive Examination-Chinese version. ADL=Activities of Daily Living scale.
GDS=Global Deterioration Scale; CDR=Clinical Dementia Rating.
a two-tailed Pearson chi-square test, b two-sample two-tailed t-test, c Mann-Whitney U test.
Classification results in 8-fold cross validation using the functional connectivity maps of the DFC
| Features | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| the left DFC | 75.07 | 81.57 | 61.71 | 0.887 |
| the right DFC | 45.38 | 60.74 | 39.48 | 0.814 |
| the left D+the right DFC | 58.46 | 71.43 | 48.39 | 0.877 |
Figure 1ROC curves and AUC of the final SVM model (the left DFC) for each patient
VBM analysis showing the difference of the subregions of DFC volume between SVCI patients and the controls
| ROIs | Subregions of DFC | p | t |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROI 1 | SMA | 0.35647 | -0.92883 |
| ROI 2 | pre-SMA | 0.4244 | -0.80396 |
| ROI 3 | area 9 | 0.43384 | -0.7876 |
| ROI 4 | area 10 | 0.88732 | -0.14226 |
| ROI 5 | area 9/46d | 0.66624 | -0.43332 |
| ROI 6 | area 9/46v | 0.46504 | -0.73497 |
| ROI 7 | area 46 | 0.45793 | -0.74678 |
| ROI 8 | area 8d | 0.77892 | -0.28192 |
| ROI 9 | rostral PMd | 0.47772 | -0.71417 |
| ROI 10 | area 8v | 0.66459 | -0.43561 |
Figure 2Correlation between cognition and functional connectivity in the DFC
Pearson correlation analyses revealed that CAMCOG-C scores positively correlated with the functional connectivity between area 46 and pre-SMA, and the praxis function positively correlated with the functional connectivity between area 8d and area 9/46d.
Figure 3Tractography-based parcellation revealed ten clusters in human dorsal frontal cortex
ROI 1 resembled SMA, ROI 2 resembled pre-SMA, ROI 3 resembled area9, ROI 4 resembled area10, ROI 5 resembled area 9/46d (e), ROI 6 resembled area 9/46v, ROI 7 resembled area 46, ROI 8 resembled area 8d, ROI 9 resembled rostral PMd, and ROI 10 resembled area 8v.
Figure 4Flowchart of the proposed classification framework