| Literature DB >> 33229718 |
Erin E Kaiser1, J C Poythress2, Kelly M Scheulin1, Brian J Jurgielewicz1, Nicole A Lazar2, Cheolwoo Park2, Steven L Stice1, Jeongyoun Ahn2, Franklin D West1.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a clinically relevant, real-time imaging modality that is frequently utilized to assess stroke type and severity. However, specific MRI biomarkers that can be used to predict long-term functional recovery are still a critical need. Consequently, the present study sought to examine the prognostic value of commonly utilized MRI parameters to predict functional outcomes in a porcine model of ischemic stroke. Stroke was induced via permanent middle cerebral artery occlusion. At 24 hours post-stroke, MRI analysis revealed focal ischemic lesions, decreased diffusivity, hemispheric swelling, and white matter degradation. Functional deficits including behavioral abnormalities in open field and novel object exploration as well as spatiotemporal gait impairments were observed at 4 weeks post-stroke. Gaussian graphical models identified specific MRI outputs and functional recovery variables, including white matter integrity and gait performance, that exhibited strong conditional dependencies. Canonical correlation analysis revealed a prognostic relationship between lesion volume and white matter integrity and novel object exploration and gait performance. Consequently, these analyses may also have the potential of predicting patient recovery at chronic time points as pigs and humans share many anatomical similarities (e.g., white matter composition) that have proven to be critical in ischemic stroke pathophysiology. The study was approved by the University of Georgia (UGA) Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC; Protocol Number: A2014-07-021-Y3-A11 and 2018-01-029-Y1-A5) on November 22, 2017.Entities:
Keywords: Gaussian graphical models; behavior testing; canonical correlation analysis; gait analysis; ischemic stroke; magnetic resonance imaging; pig model; principal component analysiszzm321990
Year: 2021 PMID: 33229718 PMCID: PMC8178783 DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.297079
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Regen Res ISSN: 1673-5374 Impact factor: 5.135
Magnetic resonance imaging collection protocol
| Siemens | General Electric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T2FLAIR | T2W | DWI/ADC | DTI/FA | T2FLAIR | T2W | DWI/ADC | DTI/FA | |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 3 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| FOV (mm) | 200 | 200 | 202 | 200 | 20 | 20 | 26.6 | 25.6 |
| TR | 9070 | 115 | 4644 | 3400 | 9072 | 6260 | 6000 | 10000 |
| TE | 97 | 6260 | 97 | 92 | 120 | 124 | 96.1 | 99.2 |
| B-value 1 (s/mm2) | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 | N/A | N/A | 0 | 0 |
| B-value 2 (s/mm2) | N/A | N/A | 500 | 1000 | N/A | N/A | 1000 | 1000 |
| B-value 3 (s/mm2) | N/A | N/A | 1000 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 10000 | N/A |
Magnetic resonance imaging was performed 24 hours post-stroke on a Siemens or General Electric 3.0 Tesla Magnetom Avanto system according the following parameters. ADC: apparent diffusion coefficient; DTI: diffusion tensor imaging; DWI: diffusion weighted imaging; FA: fractional anisotropy; FOV: field-of-view; TE: echo time; TR: repetition time; T2FLAIR: T2 fluid attenuated inversion recovery; T2W: T2 weighted.
Definitions of assessed magnetic resonance and functional outcome variables
| Abbreviation | Variable | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Swelling | Right hemisphere volume (cm3)/left hemisphere volume (cm3) | Change in hemisphere volume as assessed by T2 weighted sequences Portion of the ipsilateral hemisphere affected by lesion as assessed by T2 weighted and diffusion weighted imaging sequences |
| ΔADC | Mean ADC value of the right hemisphere/mean ADC value of the left hemisphere | Change in diffusivity as assessed by apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps |
| ΔCC FA | Mean fractional anisotropy (FA) value of the right corpus callosum/ mean FA value of the left corpus callosum | Change in white matter integrity as assessed by FA maps |
| RCC FA | FA value of the right corpus callosum | White matter integrity as assessed by FA maps |
| LCC FA | FA value of the left corpus callosum | White matter integrity as assessed by FA maps |
| ΔIC FA | Mean FA value of the right internal capsule/mean FA value of the leftinternal capsule | Change in white matter integrity as assessed by FA maps |
| RIC FA | FA value of the right internal capsule | White matter integrity as assessed by FA maps |
| LIC FA | FA value of the left internal capsule | White matter integrity as assessed by FA map |
| Distance traveled | Distance traveled (m) | Distance traveled during open field (OF) testing as assessed by Ethovision XT software |
| Velocity | Distance traveled (m)/time (s) | Velocity during OF testing as assessed by Ethovision XT software |
| %Exploration | (Time pig spent exploring (s)/time pig spent not exploring (s) ) × 100% | Percentage of time spent exploring during OF testing as assessed by Ethovision XT software |
| NO exploration | (Time pig spent exploring the novel object (NO) (s)/total time pig spent exploring objects (s) ) ,!× 100% | Percentage of time spent exploring the NO during novel object recognition testing as assessed by Ethovision XT software |
| NO visits | Number of instances the NO is explored | The cumulative number of instances the NO was investigated during NOR testing as assessed by Ethovision XT software |
| FO exploration | (Time pig spent exploring the familiar object (FO) (s)/total time pig spent exploring objects (s) ) × 100% | Percentage of time spent exploring the FO during novel object recognition testing as assessed by Ethovision XT software |
| FO visits | Number of instances the FO is explored | The cumulative number of instances the FO was investigated during NOR testing as assessed by Ethovision XT software |
| Velocity | Distance traveled (cm)/ambulation time (s) | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
| Cadence | Number of strides/time (min) | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
| Step length | Length (cm) between the heel center of the current hoof print to the heel center of the previous hoof print on the opposite hoof (i.e., left front to right front, right hind to left hind) | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
| Stride length | Length (cm) between the heel points of two consecutive hoof prints of the same hoof (i.e., left front to left front, right hind to right hind) | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
| Swing time | The swing phase is the non-weight-bearing portion of each gait cycle; the time elapsed (s) between the last contact and the first contact of one identified hoof | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
| Stance time | The stance phase is the weight-bearing portion of each gait cycle; the time elapsed (s) between the firstcontact and the last contact of one identified hoof | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
| #Sensors | Number of sensors activated by contact of each hoof | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
| TSP | Total scaled pressure shows sum of peak pressure values (arbitrary units) recorded from each activated sensor by a hoof during gait mat contact | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
| Hind reach | Length (cm) measured from the heel center of the hind hoof to the heel center of the previous forehoof onthe same side (i.e., left hind to previous left front) | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
| %TPI | Total pressure index shows weight distribution (%) of all four hooves | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
| Cycle time | Time elapsed (s) between the first contacts of two consecutive hoof strikes of the same hoof (i.e., left front to left front) | As assessed by GAITFour® software |
Correlation between the original gait parameters and gait principal component variables
| Variable | Gait PC1 | Gait PC2 | Gait PC3 | Gait PC4 | Gait PC5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Velocity | -0.96 | -0.02 | -0.24 | 0.07 | 0.04 |
| Cadence | -0.94 | 0.12 | -0.27 | -0.05 | 0.06 |
| Cycle time | 0.94 | -0.06 | 0.32 | 0.06 | 0.04 |
| Stride length | -0.90 | -0.28 | -0.17 | 0.24 | -0.13 |
| Hind reach | |||||
| L | 0.85 | -0.13 | -0.30 | 0.04 | 0.09 |
| R | 0.77 | -0.08 | -0.34 | 0.31 | -0.03 |
| Step length | |||||
| LF | -0.88 | -0.38 | -0.14 | 0.21 | -0.12 |
| RF | -0.90 | -0.21 | -0.21 | 0.26 | -0.16 |
| LH | -0.85 | -0.41 | -0.14 | 0.07 | -0.04 |
| RH | -0.87 | -0.13 | -0.20 | 0.36 | -0.19 |
| Swing time | |||||
| LF | 0.66 | -0.44 | 0.52 | 0.25 | 0.03 |
| RF | 0.77 | -0.22 | 0.45 | 0.21 | -0.29 |
| LH | 0.90 | -0.29 | 0.16 | 0.23 | -0.09 |
| RH | 0.80 | -0.30 | 0.23 | 0.20 | -0.37 |
| #Sensors | |||||
| LF | -0.62 | -0.47 | 0.46 | -0.03 | 0.39 |
| RF | -0.73 | -0.49 | 0.17 | -0.23 | 0.07 |
| LH | -0.70 | 0.42 | 0.48 | -0.26 | -0.00 |
| RH | 0.56 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.61 | 0.06 |
| TSP | |||||
| LF | -0.80 | -0.35 | 0.48 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
| RF | -0.88 | -0.44 | 0.10 | -0.04 | -0.08 |
| LH | -0.82 | 0.22 | 0.47 | -0.13 | -0.16 |
| RH | -0.78 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 0.50 | 0.06 |
| %TPI | |||||
| LF | 0.37 | -0.72 | 0.49 | -0.06 | 0.15 |
| RF | 0.04 | -0.73 | -0.60 | -0.24 | -0.03 |
| LH | -0.40 | 0.67 | 0.34 | -0.43 | -0.25 |
| RH | 0.15 | 0.51 | -0.16 | 0.78 | 0.20 |
The relative correlations between the original gait variables and the gait PC variables can aid in interpreting the modes of variation captured by each PC. PC1 is highly correlated with velocity, cadence, cycle time, and stride length, and moderately correlated with many others. The large number of variables correlated with PC1 suggests it is capturing general aspects of movement, such as the size of an animal's steps and how quickly it is walking. PC2 is most correlated with the total pressure index (%TPI) followed by number of sensors (%sensors). The front paws are negatively correlated with PC2 and the hind paws are positively correlated, suggesting that PC2 is capturing a shift in the distribution of weight between the front and hind. PC3 is most correlated with %TPI of the right front (RF), followed by several variables measured from the left front (LF) and left hind (LH) paws. The correlation with %TPI RF is in the opposite direction as the others, suggesting that PC3 captures a shift in the distribution of weight between the left and right sides. Gait PC4 is positively correlated with %TPI, #sensors, and total scaled pressure (TSP) measured on the right hind (RH) paw, suggesting it is capturing how weight is distributed onto that paw. Gait PC5 is only moderately correlated with #sensors LF and swing time of the right paws; it may be capturing variability in the length of time animals take to move their right-side limbs.
Sparse canonical correlation analysis variable ranking based on importance
| Rank | MRI parameters | Functional recovery variables |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | %Lesion | NO visits |
| 2 | Swelling | Gait PC5 |
| 3 | RIC | FA Gait PC2 |
| 4 | ΔIC FA | Distance traveled |
The 5 most important 24-hour magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers and 4-week post-stroke recovery variables. RIC FA: FA value of the right internal capsule; LIC FA: FA value of the left internal capsule; NO visits: number of instances the novel object is explored; ΔIC FA: mean FA value of the right internal capsule/mean FA value of the left internal capsule.
Variables and estimated canonical loadings and correlations for the best candidate models
| Models | Canonical variates of MRI parameters | Canonical variates of functional recovery variables | Canonical correlation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.775 × %lesion – 0.336 × RIC FA | –0.643 × NO visits –0.381 × gait PC2 –0.676 × gait PC5 | 0.92 |
| 2 | 1.000 × %lesion | –0.648 × NO visits – 0.375 × gait PC2 – 0.675 × gait PC5 | 0.90 |
| 3 | 1.000 × %lesion | –0.722 – 0.643 × NO visits – 0.720 × gait PC5 | 0.84 |
The best candidate models using 3, 4 and 5 total variables for canonical correlation analysis (CCA). The loading vectors suggest that an increase in percent lesion (%lesion) and a decrease in the mean fractional anisotropy value of the right internal capsule (RIC FA) result in decreased novel object (NO) visits, gait PC2, and gait PC5.