| Literature DB >> 32204343 |
Enrico Collantoni1, Christopher R Madan2, Paolo Meneguzzo1, Iolanna Chiappini1, Elena Tenconi1,3, Renzo Manara1, Angela Favaro1,3.
Abstract
Fractal Dimension (FD) has shown to be a promising means to describe the morphology of cortical structures across different neurologic and psychiatric conditions, displaying a good sensitivity in capturing atrophy processes. In this study, we aimed at exploring the morphology of cortical areas by means of FD in 58 female patients with Anorexia Nervosa (AN) (38 currently underweight and 20 fully recovered) and 38 healthy controls (HC). All participants underwent high-resolution MRI. Surface extraction was completed using FreeSurfer, FD was computed using the calcFD toolbox. The whole cortex mean FD value was lower in acute AN patients compared to HC (p < 0.001). Recovered AN patients did not show differences in the global FD when compared to HC. However, some brain areas showed higher FD in patients than controls, while others showed the opposite pattern. Parietal regions showed lower FD in both AN groups. In acute AN patients, the FD correlated with age (p < 0.001), body mass index (p = 0.019) and duration of illness (p = 0.011). FD seems to represent a feasible method to explore cortical complexity in patients with AN since it demonstrated to be sensitive to the effects of both severity and duration of malnutrition.Entities:
Keywords: anorexia nervosa; cortical complexity; eating disorders; fractal dimension; malnutrition; neuroimaging
Year: 2020 PMID: 32204343 PMCID: PMC7141241 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030833
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the sample.
| AN | AN-REC | HC | AN | AN-REC. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Z ( | Z ( | |
| Age (years) | 26.1 | 7.2 | 26.3 | 7.0 | 25.2 | 6.7 | 0.38 (0.701) | 0.44 (0.659) |
| Baseline BMI (kg/m2) | 16.0 | 1.8 | 19.6 | 1.6 | 21.6 | 3.0 | 7.42 (0.000) | 3.09 (0.002) |
| Lowest BMI (kg/m2) | 14.0 | 1.8 | 15.7 | 1.4 | 19.8 | 2.5 | 7.17 (0.000) | 5.35 (0.000) |
| Weight loss (kg) | 7.1 | 2.8 | 5.2 | 3.1 | 3.4 | 1.7 | - | - |
| Age of onset (years) | 18.3 | 5.0 | 17.7 | 3.2 | - | - | - | - |
| Duration of illness (months) | 78.6 | 81.2 | 45.7 | 65.0 | - | - | - | - |
| Duration of recovery (months) | 45.4 | 47.0 | - | - | - | - | ||
| Edinburgh laterality index | 57.1 | 37.5 | 60.0 | 35.2 | 55.0 | 42.0 | 0.52 (0.603) | 0.32 (0.749) |
| Education (years) | 14.2 | 2.2 | 14.1 | 2.6 | 15.4 | 2.3 | 2.63 (0.009) | 1.94 (0.053) |
| Drive to thinness | 9.9 | 6.1 | - | - | 2.3 | 4.2 | 5.492 (0.000) | - |
| Depression | 1.4 | 0.8 | - | - | 0.7 | 0.6 | 3.844 (0.000) | - |
| Trait anxiety | 56.6 | 9.7 | - | - | 39.3 | 9.6 | 5.883 (0.000) | - |
| Cortex volume | 440,936 | 38,526 | 456,932 | 36,916 | 458,753 | 31,225 | 9.55 (0.003) | 0.07 (0.80) |
| Gyrification Index | 2.85 | 0.09 | 2.90 | 0.09 | 2.90 | 0.11 | 2.09 (0.04) | 0.08 (0.93) |
| Surface area | 160,640 | 13,527 | 157,348 | 9381 | 165,082 | 12,113 | 2.20 (0.142) | 6.11 (0.017) |
| Cortical Thickness (mm) | 2.49 | 0.12 | 2.51 | 0.11 | 2.48 | 0.12 | 0.52 (0.14) | 1.05 (0.30) |
GLM, including Total Intracranial Volume as a covariate of no interest; BMI = body mass index Clinical assessment and Follow-up.
Figure 1Illustration of the fractal dimension calculation. Individual parcellated regions (or the entire cortical ribbon) are isolated. For each region, the number of voxels at each respective box size is across different spatial resolutions, adjusting for alignment of the ‘boxes’ to the structure using the dilation algorithm. The counts and box sizes are then log-log transformed and the slope calculated. The slope in log-log space is taken as the fractal dimension of the region.
Cortical structures FD differences analysis between AN, REC-AN, and HC groups.
| AN | AN-REC | HC | AN vs. HC | AN-REC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | F* ( | F* ( | |
| Whole Brain (Cortical Ribbon) | 2.49 (0.02) | 2.52 (0.02) | 2.51 (0.01) |
| 0.32 (0.573) |
| Frontal Lobe | 2.43 (0.02) | 2.44 (0.02) | 2.44 (0.01) |
| 0.05 (0.829) |
| Parietal Lobe | 2.30 (0.02) | 2.32 (0.02) | 2.32 (0.01) |
| 0.72 (0.400) |
| Temporal Lobe | 2.34 (0.02) | 2.36 (0.01) | 2.35 (0.01) |
| 3.46 (0.068) |
| Occipital Lobe | 2.30 (0.02) | 2.32 (0.02) | 2.32 (0.01) |
| 0.55 (0.462) |
| Left Superior Parietal Lobule | 2.13 (0.06) | 2.16 (0.03) | 2.19 (0.04) |
|
|
| Right Superior Parietal Lobule | 2.11 (0.06) | 2.13 (0.04) | 2.16 (0.03) |
|
|
| Left Postcentral Gyrus | 2.06 (0.06) | 2.07 (0.04) | 2.10 (0.04) |
|
|
| Right Intraparietal Sulcus | 2.11 (0.05) | 2.12 (0.04) | 2.15 (0.03) |
|
|
| Left Parieto-Occipital Sulcus | 2.13 (0.04) | 2.13 (0.04) | 2.16 (0.02) |
|
|
| Right Parieto-Occipital Sulcus | 2.15 (0.04) | 2.16 (0.04) | 2.18 (0.03) |
|
|
* F (GLM with age and hand lateralization as covariates of no interest; degrees of freedom = 3), p threshold determined based on FDR < 0.025. Significant effects are highlighted in bold.
Figure 2Mean surface area for all parcellation regions using the Destrieux atlas. Figures (a,c) show the surface area for parcellations in the original Destrieux atlas; Figures (b,d) show areas for combined regions—where the original regions were considered too small for reliable FD calculations. Regions maintained (not combined) in all plots are shown in gray. Regions that were combined to form larger regions are shown in distinct colors, matched between the panels and in Figure 3C. For Figure (b), after each combined region’s name, the number of Destrieux regions combined is included in parentheses. Figures (c,d) show the relationship between surface area and FD (across all participants), showing that FD becomes increasingly distinct from size for larger regions and that the combined regions increased this property. As above, Figure c corresponds to the original Destrieux atlas, whereas figure d uses the recombined regions.
Figure 3Unthresholded group comparison (F-statistics) plotted on the inflated cortical surface for the combined regions. (A) Regional F-statistics comparing Anorexia Nervosa (AN) patients and Healthy Controls (HC). (B) Regional F-statistics comparing recovered Anorexia Nervosa (AN-REC) patients with Healthy Controls (HC). (C) All cortical regions were included in the analysis. Regions shown in color were recombined with respect to the original Destrieux atlas to yield sufficiently large surfaces areas; colors match the labels and areas shown in Figure 2.
Correlation between whole-brain (cortical ribbon) FD and clinical variables within each group.
| AN | AN-REC | Healthy Controls | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Age | −0.608 (0.000) * | −0.617 (0.004) * | −0.527 (0.001) * |
| Body mass index (BMI) | 0.380 (0.019) * | −0.351 (0.130) | −0.209 (0.207) |
| Duration of illness | −0.406 (0.011) * | −0.111 (0.642) | |
| Age of AN onset | −0.265 (0.108) | −0.586 (0.007) * | |
| Cortical volume | 0.638 (0.000) * | 0.537 (0.015) * | 0.496 (0.002) * |
| Cortical gyrification | 0.258 (0.118) | 0.376 (0.102) | 0.514 (0.001) * |
| Cortical thickness | 0.000 (0.998) | 0.65 (0.787) | 0.025 (0.883) |
FD: Fractal Dimension; Spearman’s ρ(rho); * FDR < 0.025.
Figure 4Correlations between whole-brain (cortical ribbon) and lobar FD and age in the three groups.