| Literature DB >> 29481995 |
Danuta M Lisiecka-Ford1, Daniel J Tozer2, Robin G Morris3, Andrew J Lawrence3, Thomas R Barrick4, Hugh S Markus2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Apathy is a common yet under-recognised feature of cerebral small vessel disease (SVD), but its underlying neurobiological basis is not yet understood. We hypothesized that damage to the reward network is associated with an increase of apathy in patients with SVD.Entities:
Keywords: Apathy; Graph theory; Lacunar stroke; Neural network; Reward; Small vessel disease
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29481995 PMCID: PMC5884309 DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.02.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Affect Disord ISSN: 0165-0327 Impact factor: 4.839
Demographic and clinical variables of participants with SVD in the final analysis.
| Number of participants | 114 |
| Mean age in years (SD) | 70.0 (9.6) |
| Gender male (%) | 75 (65.8%) |
| Hypertension (%) | 101 (88.6%) |
| Systolic BP (SD) | 147.16 (21.5) |
| Diastolic BP (SD) | 81.06 (10.7) |
| Hypercholesterolemia (%) | 104 (91.2%) |
| Diabetes mellitus (%) | 22 (19.3%) |
| Current or ex-smoker (%) | 63 (52.6%) |
| BMI kg/m2 (SD) | 26.9 (4.8) |
| Fazekas Scale (%) | Fazekas 3 – 31 (27.2%) |
| Fazekas 2 – 66 (57.9%) | |
| Fazekas 1 – 17 (14.9%) | |
| Apathy (SD) | 2.9 (1.7) |
Fig. 1Topological clusters showing significant negative correlation between apathy and connectivity strength on the level p < 0.05 (corrected for multiple comparisons) in the whole brain analysis. Different colours represent the four clusters whose neural connectivity correlates negatively with apathy. The nodes forming the clusters are described in Table 2 (cluster 1 = red; cluster 2 = yellow; cluster 3 = green; cluster 4 = blue). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Nodes participating in the topological clusters showing a significant negative correlation between the connectivity strength and apathy levels in the whole brain analysis (p < 0.05).
| Topological cluster | Edges count | Nodes count | Nodes participating | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 1 | 13 | 13 | L middle orbitofrontal cortex | P < .001 |
| L&R medial superior frontal | ||||
| L anterior cingulate cortex | ||||
| L pallidum | ||||
| R middle cingulate cortex | ||||
| L hippocampus | ||||
| R thalamus | ||||
| L&R superior parietal cortex | ||||
| L&R precuneus | ||||
| R inferior parietal cortex | ||||
| Cluster 2 | 9 | 9 | L superior temporal pole | P = .002 |
| L rolandic Operculum | ||||
| L superior temporal cortex | ||||
| L inferior temporal cortex | ||||
| L middle temporal cortex | ||||
| L angular gyrus | ||||
| L lingual gyrus | ||||
| L middle occipital cortex | ||||
| L inferior occipital cortex | ||||
| Cluster 3 | 6 | 7 | R superior temporal cortex | P = .009 |
| R inferior temporal cortex | ||||
| R middle temporal cortex | ||||
| R angular cortex | ||||
| L calcarine fissure | ||||
| R middle occipital cortex | ||||
| R inferior occipital cortex | ||||
| Cluster 4 | 4 | 5 | R middle orbitofrontal cortex | P = .039 |
| R inferior orbitofrontal cortex | ||||
| R superior temporal pole | ||||
| R insula | ||||
| R putamen |
Partial correlation between efficiency of a-priori defined sub-networks and apathy levels with the contribution of the remaining networks controlled.
| Network correlated | Control network | Apathy correlation value when controlled for other networks | p-value (two-tailed) when controlled for other networks | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency | Sum of weights | Efficiency | Sum of weights | ||
| Reward network | Visual network | −0.289 | −0.323 | P = .002 | P<.001 |
| Motor network | −0.27 | −0.293 | P = .004 | P = .002 | |
| Motor network | Reward network | −0.074 | −0.075 | P = .439 | P = .432 |
| Visual network | −0.177 | −0.203 | P = .06 | P = .031 | |
| Visual network | Reward network | −0.08 | −0.051 | P = .401 | P = .588 |
| Motor network | −0.145 | −0.136 | P = .125 | P = .151 | |
Significant partial correlations (p < 0.05).