| Literature DB >> 30003037 |
Miseon Shim1, Chang-Hwan Im2, Yong-Wook Kim3, Seung-Hwan Lee4.
Abstract
Background: Electroencephalogram (EEG)-based brain network analysis is a useful biological correlate reflecting brain function. Sensor-level network analysis might be contaminated by volume conduction and does not explain regional brain characteristics. Source-level network analysis could be a useful alternative. We analyzed EEG-based source-level network in major depressive disorder (MDD). Method: Resting-state EEG was recorded in 87 MDD and 58 healthy controls, and cortical source signals were estimated. Network measures were calculated: global indices (strength, clustering coefficient (CC), path length (PL), and efficiency) and nodal indices (eigenvector centrality and nodal CC) in six frequency. Correlation analyses were performed between network indices and symptom scales.Entities:
Keywords: Brain electrical activity mapping; Electroencephalogram; Major depressive disorder; Source-level brain network
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30003037 PMCID: PMC6039896 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.06.012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
Demographic data of patients with major depressive disorder and healthy controls.
| MDD | HC | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Cases (N) | 87 | 58 | |
| Gender (male/female) | 33/54 | 30/28 | 0.124 |
| Age (years) | 42.14 ± 10.48 | 39.98 ± 11.63 | 0.248 |
| Education (years) | 13.23 ± 3.32 | 14.45 ± 3.37 | 0.069 |
| Symptom score | |||
| HAM-A | 22.09 ± 6.95 | ||
| HAM-D | 25.82 ± 8.74 | ||
| BDI | 25.63 ± 10.16 | ||
| BAI | 24.06 ± 9.41 | ||
MDD, Major depressive disorder; HCs, Healthy controls; HAM-A, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale; HAM-D, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; BAI, Beck Anxiety Inventory.
Mean and standard deviation values of the global network indices of strength, clustering coefficient, path length, and efficiency in theta and alpha band frequencies.
| MDD | HC | Corrected | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theta band | |||
| Strength | 29.52 ± 5.33 | 31.50 ± 5.40 | 0.031 |
| Clustering coefficient | 0.42 ± 0.09 | 0.45 ± 0.09 | 0.037 |
| Path length | 2.63 ± 0.38 | 2.51 ± 0.41 | 0.068 |
| Efficiency | 0.47 ± 0.08 | 0.50 ± 0.07 | 0.052 |
| Alpha band | |||
| Strength | 36.08 ± 7.55 | 39.45 ± 7.81 | 0.010 |
| Clustering coefficient | 0.51 ± 0.12 | 0.58 ± 0.13 | 0.010 |
| Path length | 2.17 ± 0.47 | 1.99 ± 0.45 | 0.019 |
| Efficiency | 0.57 ± 0.10 | 0.61 ± 0.11 | 0.013 |
Major depressive disorder, MDD; Healthy control, HC.
p < 0.05.
Fig. 1Effect-size of differences of eigenvector centrality between patients with MDD and HCs in alpha frequency bands. The meaning of each bar is the effect-size at each node. The threshold value was set as 0.06 (medium effect). In the brain model, the density of colors and size of circles represent the difference direction and effect size, respectively (* ƞ2 > 0.06).
Fig. 2Effect-size of differences of eigenvector centrality between patients with MDD and HCs in alpha frequency bands. The meaning of each bar is the effect-size at each node. The threshold value was set as 0.06 (medium effect). In the brain model, the density of colors and size of circles represent the difference direction and effect size, respectively (* ƞ2 > 0.06). The relationships between nodal clustering coefficient and psychiatric symptoms (MDD, Major depressive disorder; HCs, Healthy controls; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; BAI, Beck Anxiety Inventory).