| Literature DB >> 31786312 |
Zhenyu Liu1, Jiangang Liu2, Huijuan Yuan3, Taiyuan Liu4, Xingwei Cui5, Zhenchao Tang6, Yang Du7, Meiyun Wang8, Yusong Lin9, Jie Tian10.
Abstract
Majority of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients are highly susceptible to several forms of cognitive impairments, particularly dementia. However, the underlying neural mechanism of these cognitive impairments remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the correlation between whole brain resting state functional connections (RSFCs) and the cognitive status in 95 patients with T2DM. We constructed an elastic net model to estimate the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores, which served as an index of the cognitive status of the patients, and to select the RSFCs for further prediction. Subsequently, we utilized a machine learning technique to evaluate the discriminative ability of the connectivity pattern associated with the selected RSFCs. The estimated and chronological MoCA scores were significantly correlated with R = 0.81 and the mean absolute error (MAE) = 1.20. Additionally, cognitive impairments of patients with T2DM can be identified using the RSFC pattern with classification accuracy of 90.54% and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of 0.9737. This connectivity pattern not only included the connections between regions within the default mode network (DMN), but also the functional connectivity between the task-positive networks and the DMN, as well as those within the task-positive networks. The results suggest that an RSFC pattern could be regarded as a potential biomarker to identify the cognitive status of patients with T2DM.Entities:
Keywords: Elastic net; MoCA; Resting state functional connectivity; Support vector machines; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31786312 PMCID: PMC6943769 DOI: 10.1016/j.gpb.2019.09.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics ISSN: 1672-0229 Impact factor: 7.691
Characteristics of the T2DM patients examined in this study
| Age (year) | 54.51 ± 8.90 |
| Sex (male/female) | 65/30 |
| Fasting glucose (mM) | 8.97 ± 2.58 |
| HbA1c % (mmol/mol) | 8.24 ± 1.71 (66.5 ± 18.7) |
| Total cholesterol (mM) | 4.51 ± 1.08 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.31 ± 3.15 |
| Disease duration (year) | 9.57 ± 6.33 |
| MoCA | 25.85 ± 1.97 |
Note: Data are presented as mean ± SD. HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; BMI, body mass index; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 1Feature selection with E-net
Tuning parameter selection in the E-net model used 10-fold cross-validation via minimum criteria. The mean absolute error is plotted versus log (λ). The left vertical line represents the value of λ that gives minimum mean absolute error, and the right vertical line represents the largest value of λ that error was within 1× standard error of the minimum. The left vertical line was used as the optimal value in this study.
Figure 2Results of MoCA estimation and cognition classification
A. The plot of real versus estimated MoCA scores. B. The result of the permutation test to estimate MoCA. The predictions based on 500 permutations were evaluated by the Pearson's correlation coefficients between the estimated and permuted MoCA. The red line indicates the estimation based on non-permuted MoCA. C. The ROC curve to classify cognition (AUC = 0.9737). The estimated MoCA was calculated by the E-net model, and the real MoCA was obtained by a MoCA test. D. The result of the permutation test to classify cognition. Predictions were based on 500 permutations, and the classifications were evaluated by the classification rates. The red line indicates the classification rate based on non-permuted labels. MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; ACC, accuracy; MAE, mean absolute error; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, the area under the ROC curve.
Figure 3The RSFCs selected from the MoCA estimation model
A. The network connectivity diagram of the RSFCs selected from the MoCA estimation model. B. Brain surface rendering of the RSFCs selected from the MoCA estimation model. The orange dots indicate the brain regions of auditory network and the green dots indicate brain regions of DMN, the indigo dots indicate the brain regions of effective control network, the blue dots indicate the brain regions of motor network, and the red dots indicate the brain regions of visual network. The red lines indicate the RSFCs between regions of the DMN, the green lines indicate the RSFCs between regions of the DMN and regions of task-positive networks, and the blue lines indicate the RSFCs between regions of task-positive networks. In panel B, larger dots indicate more connections of the brain regions. DMN, default mode network; RSFC, resting state functional connection.
RSFCs selected as the key features from the MoCA estimation model for cognition classification
| CAU_R (25) | 11, 18, 5 | DMN | HIP_R (20) | 25, −10, −15 | DMN | −0.20651 | −0.297 | 0.069 |
| SFG_orb_R (11) | 22, 63, −6 | DMN | SFG_R (6) | 22, 0, 64 | DMN | 0.00917 | 0.349 | 0.023* |
| REC_R (11) | 8, 35, 18 | DMN | SFG_orb_L (11) | −16, 47, −13 | DMN | −0.07694 | −0.262 | 0.23 |
| IFG_orb_L (47) | −40, 36, −12 | ECN | IFG_oper_L (48) | −53, 14, 9 | ECN | 0.158143 | 0.338 | 0.023* |
| IPG_L (40) | −45, −43, 53 | DMN | IFG_oper_L (48) | −53, 14, 9 | ECN | 0.157015 | 0.327 | 0.023* |
| HIP_L (20) | −25, −21, −10 | DMN | IFG_oper_L (48) | −53, 14, 9 | ECN | 0.079794 | −0.261 | 0.253 |
| HES_L (48) | −46, −15, 12 | AN | INS_L (48) | −40, 17, −2 | AN | 0.036246 | −0.305 | 0.069 |
| STGp_L (38) | −40, 15, −20 | AN | ACC_R (24) | 8, 37, 16 | DMN | −0.0138 | 0.263 | 0.23 |
| IFG_orb_L (47) | −40, 36, −12 | ECN | PreCG_L (6) | −42, 0, 32 | DMN | −0.03047 | 0.347 | 0.023* |
| HES_L (48) | −46, −15, 12 | AN | IOG_R (19) | 38, −81, −7 | VN | −0.06352 | 0.225 | 0.667 |
| LING_R (18) | 16, −67, −3.87 | VN | IFG_tri_R (45) | 50, 30, 14 | ECN | −0.06527 | −0.297 | 0.069 |
| MCC_R (24) | 8, −9, 40 | MoN | SFG_med_R (10) | 9, 51, 30 | DMN | −0.06985 | −0.279 | 0.138 |
| CAL_R (17) | 17, −68, 10 | VN | IFG_tri_L (45) | −48, 35, 12 | ECN | −0.07421 | −0.365 | 0.023* |
| HES_R (48) | 46, −15, 12 | AN | PCNU_R (5/23) | 6, −57, 59 | DMN | −0.07937 | 0.321 | 0.046* |
| STGp_R (38) | 54, 9, −2 | AN | IOG_L (19) | −36, −82, −8 | VN | −0.11025 | −0.349 | 0.023* |
| ROL_oper_L (48) | −47, −8, 14 | ECN | MFG_R (8) | 37, 33, 34 | ECN | −0.13138 | −0.262 | 0.23 |
| PUT_R (48) | 29, 6, 8 | DMN | IFG_oper_L (48) | −53, 14, 9 | ECN | −0.13228 | −0.292 | 0.092 |
| MTG_L (21) | −54, −54, 8 | AN | MFG_orb_L (10) | −5, 51, −6 | ECN | −0.17921 | −0.307 | 0.046* |
| PAL_L (48) | −18, 0, 0.21 | AN | ROL_oper _R (48) | 53, −6, 15 | ECN | −0.18165 | −0.239 | 0.46 |
| MTGp_L (38) | −43, 16, −32 | AN | MFG_L (8) | −33, 10, 54 | ECN | −0.21036 | −0.348 | 0.023* |
| STGp_R (38) | 54, 9, −2 | AN | SOG_R (19) | 23, −76, 34 | VN | −0.22058 | −0.296 | 0.092 |
| PCL_R (4) | 7, −32, 68 | MoN | SFG_med_L (10) | −5, 49, 31 | DMN | −0.23836 | −0.262 | 0.23 |
| PHG_R (28) | 25, −15, −20 | DMN | MFG_L (8) | −33, 10, 54 | ECN | −0.28274 | −0.251 | 0.322 |
Note: RSFC, resting state functional connection; ROI; region of interest; RSN, resting state network; DMN, default mode network; ECN, executive control network, AN, auditory network; MoN, motor network; VN, visual network. CAL, calcarine; CAU, caudate; ACC, anterior cingulum cortex; MCC, middle cingulum cortex; HES, heschl; HIP, hippocampus; IFG_oper, inferior frontal gyrus opercular; IFG_orb, IFG orbital; IFG_tri, IFG triangular; INS, insula; IOG, inferior occipital gyrus; IPG, inferior parietal gyrus; LING, lingual; MFG, middle frontal gyrus; MFG_orb, MFG orbital; MTG, middle temporal gyrus; MTGp, MTG pole; PAL, pallidum; PCL, paracentral lobule; PHG, parahippocampal gyrus; PreCG, precentral gyrus; PCNU, precuneus; PUT, putamen; REC, rectus; ROL_oper, rolandic opercular; SFG, superior frontal gyrus; SFG_med, SFG medial; SFG_orb, SFG orbital; SOG, superior occipital gyrus; STGp, superior temporal gyrus pole; R, right; L, left. *, P < 0.05 (after Bonferroni correction for the number of features).
Figure 4Correlations between the selected RSFCs and MoCA scores
Pearson’s correlations between the selected RSFCs and MoCA scores were calculated for different region pairs. The red dots indicate the cognition impairment group with MoCA scores <26. The blue dots indicated the normal cognition group with MoCA scores >26. The dashed line indicates the correlation trend line. IFG_orb_L, left inferior frontal gyrus orbital; IFG_oper_L, left inferior frontal gyrus opercular; IFG_tri_L, left inferior frontal gyrus triangular; IPG_L, left inferior parietal gyrus; SFG_orb_R, right superior frontal gyrus orbital; SFG_R, right superior frontal gyrus; PreCG_L, left precentral gyrus; CAL_R, right calcarine; HES_R, right heschl; PCNU_R, right precuneus; STGp_R, right superior temporal gyrus pole; IOG_L, left inferior occipital gyrus; MTG_L, left middle temporal gyrus; MFG_orb_L, left middle frontal gyrus orbital; MTGp_L, left middle temporal gyrus pole; MFG_L, left middle frontal gyrus; CAU_R, right caudate; HIP_R, right hippocampus; LING_R, right lingual; INS_L, left insula.
Figure 5RSFCs demonstrate significant or marginally significant correlations with MoCA scores
A. The network connectivity diagram of the RSFCs which were significantly or marginally significantly associated with MoCA scores. B. Brain surface rendering of the RSFCs demonstrated significantly or marginally significantly associated with MoCA scores. The red lines indicate the RSFCs significantly correlated with MoCA scores, the blue lines indicate the RSFCs showed marginally significant correlations with MoCA scores. The orange dots indicate the brain regions of auditory network, the green dots indicate the brain regions of DMN, the indigo dots indicate the brain regions of effective control network, and the red dots indicate the brain regions of visual network. In panel B, larger dots indicate more connections of the brain regions. Associations between RSFCs and MoCA scores are considered significant with P < 0.05 after Bonferroni correction for the number of features, while associations are considered marginally significant with P ≈ 0.05 after Bonferroni correction for the number of features,.
Figure 6RSFCs comparison between normal cognition group and cognition impairment group
A. The network connectivity diagram of the RSFC comparison between normal cognition group and cognition impairment group. B. Brain surface rendering of the RSFCs comparison between normal cognition group and cognition impairment group. The orange dots indicate the brain regions of auditory network, the green dots indicate the brain regions of DMN, the indigo dots indicate the brain regions of effective control network, the blue dots indicate the brain regions of motor network, and the red dots indicate the brain regions of visual network. The red lines indicate significant difference in RSFCs between the two groups, whereas the blue lines indicate that there is no significant difference in RSFCs between the two groups. In panel B, larger dots indicate more connections of the brain regions. Differences in RSFCs between normal cognition group and cognition impairment group are considered significant with P < 0.05 (two sample t test).