| Literature DB >> 31953148 |
Yicheng Long1, Hengyi Cao2, Chaogan Yan3, Xiao Chen4, Le Li4, Francisco Xavier Castellanos5, Tongjian Bai6, Qijing Bo7, Guanmao Chen8, Ningxuan Chen4, Wei Chen9, Chang Cheng10, Yuqi Cheng11, Xilong Cui10, Jia Duan12, Yiru Fang13, Qiyong Gong14, Wenbin Guo10, Zhenghua Hou15, Lan Hu16, Li Kuang17, Feng Li7, Kaiming Li14, Tao Li17, Yansong Liu18, Qinghua Luo16, Huaqing Meng16, Daihui Peng13, Haitang Qiu16, Jiang Qiu19, Yuedi Shen20, Yushu Shi21, Tianmei Si22, Chuanyue Wang7, Fei Wang12, Kai Wang6, Li Wang22, Xiang Wang10, Ying Wang8, Xiaoping Wu23, Xinran Wu21, Chunming Xie24, Guangrong Xie10, Haiyan Xie25, Peng Xie26, Xiufeng Xu11, Hong Yang21, Jian Yang27, Jiashu Yao9, Shuqiao Yao10, Yingying Yin15, Yonggui Yuan15, Aixia Zhang28, Hong Zhang23, Kerang Zhang28, Lei Zhang4, Zhijun Zhang23, Rubai Zhou13, Yiting Zhou17, Junjuan Zhu13, Chaojie Zou11, Yufeng Zang29, Jingping Zhao10, Calais Kin-Yuen Chan30, Weidan Pu31, Zhening Liu32.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is known to be characterized by altered brain functional connectivity (FC) patterns. However, whether and how the features of dynamic FC would change in patients with MDD are unclear. In this study, we aimed to characterize dynamic FC in MDD using a large multi-site sample and a novel dynamic network-based approach.Entities:
Keywords: Connectome; Default-mode; Depression; Dynamic functional connectivity; FMRI; Temporal variability
Year: 2020 PMID: 31953148 PMCID: PMC7229351 DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102163
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuroimage Clin ISSN: 2213-1582 Impact factor: 4.881
The contributing sample size, clinical information of patients, and key data acquisition parameters of each site included in the current study. The nine sites were respectively located in: 1) the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing; 2) Affiliated Zhongda Hospital of the Southeast University, Nanjing; 3) the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing; 4) Anhui Medical University, Hefei; 5) Southwest University, Chongqing; 6) Beijing Anding Hospital of the Capital Medical University, Beijing; 7) the Second Xiangya Hospital of the Central South University, Changsha; 8) the West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu; 9) Affiliated Zhongda Hospital of the Southeast University, Nanjing.
| Site | Samples | Clinical information of patients | MR Scanner | TR (ms) | TE (ms) | Time points | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MDD patients | HCs | HAMD score (mean ± SD) | Duration of illness/month (mean ± SD) | FEDN/non-FEDN/unknown) | |||||
| 1 | 19 | 5 | 24.632 ± 5.315 | 30.737 ± 56.854 | 13/6/0 | GE 3T | 2000 | 30 | 240 |
| 2 | 35 | 38 | 31.057 ± 5.401 | 36.571 ± 55.143 | 35/0/0 | Siemens 3T | 2000 | 25 | 240 |
| 3 | 41 | 41 | 20.659 ± 5.695 | unavailable | 0/0/41 | GE 3T | 2000 | 40 | 240 |
| 4 | 21 | 34 | 21.619 ± 7.110 | 99.095 ± 103.342 | 0/21/0 | GE 3T | 2000 | 22.5 | 240 |
| 5 | 221 | 226 | 21.448 ± 5.057 | 49.986 ± 64.932 | 96/117/8 | Siemens 3T | 2000 | 30 | 242 |
| 6 | 60 | 64 | 17.683 ± 6.485 | 90.344 ± 100.525 | 1/59/0 | Siemens 3T | 2000 | 30 | 240 |
| 7 | 21 | 20 | 23.762 ± 5.576 | 27.658 ± 25.833 | 0/0/21 | Philips 3T | 2000 | 30 | 250 |
| 8 | 24 | 29 | 21.583 ± 5.356 | 25.208 ± 29.123 | 10/14/0 | Philips 3T | 2000 | 30 | 240 |
| 9 | 18 | 16 | 10.111 ± 2.541 | unavailable | 0/0/18 | Siemens 3T | 2000 | 25 | 240 |
Data on the duration of illness was available for only part of the patients. Abbreviations: MDD = major depressive disorder; HC= healthy control; FEDN = first-episode and drug-naïve; MR = magnetic resonance; TR = repetition time; TE = echo time.
The demographic, clinical and image (head motion) characteristics of each group.
| Major depressive disorder ( | Health controls ( | Group comparisons | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Mean ± SD) | (Mean ± SD) | ||
| Age, years | 36.785 ± 13.215 | 36.911 ± 15.252 | |
| Sex, male/female | 155/305 | 177/296 | |
| Education level, years | 11.427 ± 3.235 | 12.980 ± 3.479 | |
| Mean FD | 0.068 ± 0.033 | 0.070 ± 0.035 | |
| 17-item HAMD scores | 21.525 ± 6.642 | / | / |
| Duration of illness, months | 54.311 ± 73.120 | / | / |
Data on the duration of illness was available for 382 patients. Abbreviations: SD = standard deviation; FD = framewise-displacement; HAMD = Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.
Fig. 1The procedures for constructing dynamic brain networks and computing dynamic network metrics. (A) The time series for all nodes were divided into a number of continuous time windows. (B) The whole-brain connectivity matrices were calculated within each window to compose a dynamic network, whose temporal variability was then estimated by average dissimilarities between different windows. (C) The dynamic brain networks were further thresholded and binarized with a range of sparsities from 10% to 50%, at which temporal clustering and temporal efficiency were estimated. TR = repetition time.
Fig. 2(A) Group comparison on temporal variability. (B-C) Group comparisons on the temporal correlation coefficient and characteristic temporal path length, with values at each sparsity level and average values across all sparsities (10% to 50%) both presented. (D) Partial correlations between each metric and the HAMD score, adjusted for age, sex and site effects. The error bars and shadows in (A)–(C) represent 95% confidence intervals, and all reported p values were corrected for multiple tests using the FDR method.
Fig. 3The nodes showing (A) a higher nodal temporal variability, (B) a lower nodal temporal correlation coefficient, and (C) a shorter nodal temporal path length in MDD patients than HCs (with FDR-corrected p < 0.05). Sizes of plots are weighted by F values. ACC = anterior cingulate cortex; dFC = dorsal frontal cortex; IPS = intraparietal sulcus; L = left hemisphere; R = right hemisphere; vmPFC = ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
Fig. 4Results of subgroup comparisons among the first-episode, drug-naïve (FEDN) patients, non-FEDN patients and healthy controls (HCs). The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals, and all reported p values were corrected for multiple tests using the FDR method.