| Literature DB >> 34264308 |
Saed Khawaldeh1,2,3, Gerd Tinkhauser1,2,4, Flavie Torrecillos1,2, Shenghong He1,2, Thomas Foltynie5, Patricia Limousin5, Ludvic Zrinzo5, Ashwini Oswal1,2,6, Andrew J Quinn3, Diego Vidaurre3,7, Huiling Tan1,2, Vladimir Litvak6, Andrea Kühn8, Mark Woolrich2,3, Peter Brown1,2.
Abstract
Exaggerated local field potential bursts of activity at frequencies in the low beta band are a well-established phenomenon in the subthalamic nucleus of patients with Parkinson's disease. However, such activity is only moderately correlated with motor impairment. Here we test the hypothesis that beta bursts are just one of several dynamic states in the subthalamic nucleus local field potential in Parkinson's disease, and that together these different states predict motor impairment with high fidelity. Local field potentials were recorded in 32 patients (64 hemispheres) undergoing deep brain stimulation surgery targeting the subthalamic nucleus. Recordings were performed following overnight withdrawal of anti-parkinsonian medication, and after administration of levodopa. Local field potentials were analysed using hidden Markov modelling to identify transient spectral states with frequencies under 40 Hz. Findings in the low beta frequency band were similar to those previously reported; levodopa reduced occurrence rate and duration of low beta states, and the greater the reductions, the greater the improvement in motor impairment. However, additional local field potential states were distinguished in the theta, alpha and high beta bands, and these behaved in an opposite manner. They were increased in occurrence rate and duration by levodopa, and the greater the increases, the greater the improvement in motor impairment. In addition, levodopa favoured the transition of low beta states to other spectral states. When all local field potential states and corresponding features were considered in a multivariate model it was possible to predict 50% of the variance in patients' hemibody impairment OFF medication, and in the change in hemibody impairment following levodopa. This only improved slightly if signal amplitude or gamma band features were also included in the multivariate model. In addition, it compares with a prediction of only 16% of the variance when using beta bursts alone. We conclude that multiple spectral states in the subthalamic nucleus local field potential have a bearing on motor impairment, and that levodopa-induced shifts in the balance between these states can predict clinical change with high fidelity. This is important in suggesting that some states might be upregulated to improve parkinsonism and in suggesting how local field potential feedback can be made more informative in closed-loop deep brain stimulation systems.Entities:
Keywords: Parkinson’s disease; deep brain recording; hidden Markov modelling; machine learning; time-series analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34264308 PMCID: PMC8967096 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awab264
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain ISSN: 0006-8950 Impact factor: 13.501
Figure 1Data recorded during OFF (A) and ON (B) medications. Top row is raw LFP of 1-s data sample; second row is the corresponding amplitude of the wavelet transform; third row is the corresponding HMM states posterior probability (with 8 states and 11 lags). Bottomrow are the spectra corresponding to the HMM states derived from the complete recording in all subjects.
Figure 2Box-and-whisker plots of change (ON–OFF) in the rate of theta (4–7 Hz), alpha (8–12 Hz), low beta (13–21 Hz) and high beta (22–35 Hz) states identified by the combination of different HMM models. There are widespread changes in the burst rate of states between the OFF and ON medication condition, with these most marked for theta and low beta states. Each dot represents the median value across the 64 hemispheres in one HMM model (data from 56 different models are plotted). Statistics were derived after performing permutation testing and thereafter corrected for multiple comparisons using the FDR method. Data are presented in the form of modified box-and-whisker plots with a box from the first quartile to the third quartile, a vertical line drawn through the box at the median and whiskers drawn up to the upper and lower extreme values (excluding outliers). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 3Box-and-whisker plots of medication-linked change in transition probability between various state bands (theta, alpha, low beta, high beta and background) for different HMM models. Medication significantly drives activity away from the low beta state (shown as negative change) and into the theta and alpha states (shown as positive change). Changes in the high beta and background states are less marked, with the exception that transitions of the low beta state to the high beta and background states are increased by medication. Each dot represents the median value across the 64 hemispheres in one HMM model (data from 56 different models are plotted). Statistics were derived after performing permutation testing and thereafter corrected for multiple comparisons using the FDR method. Data are presented in the form of modified box-and-whisker plots with a box from the first quartile to the third quartile, a vertical line drawn through the box at the median and whiskers drawn up to the upper and lower extreme values (excluding outliers).*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 4Box-and-whisker plots of medication-induced change (ON–OFF medication) in fractional occupancy (A), life time (B) and interval time (C) for different HMM models. Low beta state is reduced ON medication for fractional occupancy and life time, and increased ON medication for interval time. Theta, alpha and high beta states show the converse pattern. Each dot represents the median value across the 64 hemispheres in one HMM model (data from 56 different models are plotted). Statistics were derived after performing permutation testing and thereafter corrected for multiple comparisons using the FDR method. Data are presented in the form of modified box-and-whisker plots with a box from the first quartile to the third quartile, a vertical line drawn through the box at the median and whiskers drawn up to the upper and lower extreme values (excluding outliers). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 5Correlation between medication-induced change (ON–OFF medication) in bursting and per cent change (ON–OFF medication) in contralateral hemibody UPDRS score including tremor items. Correlations for change in rate of states (A) and relative burst number (B) are shown for theta, alpha, low beta, high beta and background states identified by 56 different HMM models. Increase in rate of theta and alpha states is coupled with contralateral hemibody UPDRS Part III score reductions ON medication across all state durations. However, this pattern is reversed for the relative number of the shortest alpha states. Increase in rate of the low beta state positively correlates with contralateral hemibody motor UPDRS Part III score reductions ON medication across all burst durations. However, this is only true of longer durations when it comes to change in relative state numbers in the low beta band. Results were corrected for multiple comparisons using FDR method. Median correlations ± SD are shown. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 and refer to whether the 56 bivariate correlations for each frequency band and state episode duration were significantly more positive or negative than zero following FDR correction.
Figure 6LFP HMM state prediction of change in contralateral hemibody UPDRS score including tremor items upon treatment with levodopa. (A) Box-and-whisker plot of coefficient of determination (r2) between predicted and actual percentage improvement in contralateral hemibody UPDRS score including tremor items. Prediction was performed using ridge regression which utilized features extracted from different HMM models (left) and different percentile thresholding models across different frequency bands (right). Each dot represents data from one HMM model (n = 56) on the left and one thresholding model (n = 23; different threshold levels 55–99) on the right. ***P < 0.001. (B) Illustrative examples showing correlation between the mean predicted (across the 56 HMM and 23 thresholding models) and actual percentage improvement in contralateral hemibody bradykinesia–rigidity items of the UPDRS Part III. Prediction was performed using ridge regression which utilized multiple HMM state features (top) or multiple thresholded frequency-band features (bottom). Each dot in B represents data from one hemisphere in one subject (n = 64). Linear fits and 95% confidence limits are shown. Negative changes represent % reductions in UPDRS score after medication administration.
Figure 7LFP HMM state prediction of change in contralateral hemibody UPDRS score upon treatment with levodopa using different feature sets. (A) Box-and-whisker plots of coefficients of determination (r2) between predicted and actual percentage improvement in contralateral hemibody UPDRS score including tremor items, estimated by ridge regression utilizing only low beta features (left) and theta, alpha and high beta features (right) extracted from different HMM models. Each dot represents data from one HMM model (n = 56). ***P < 0.001. (B) Illustrative example of single HMM model showing correlation between predicted and actual percentage improvement in contralateral hemibody UPDRS score including tremor items. Prediction was performed using ridge regression which utilized only low beta (top) or utilized theta, alpha and high beta features (bottom) from an 8-state HMM model. Results of leave-one-out cross-validation are presented for the two ridge regression models. Each dot in B represents data from one hemisphere in one subject (n = 64). Linear fits and 95% confidence limits are shown. Negative changes represent per cent reductions in UPDRS score after medication administration.
Figure 8Box-and-whisker plot of coefficient of determination ( Prediction was performed using ridge regression which utilized features extracted from different HMM models (left) and different percentile thresholding models based on LFPs recorded OFF medication (right). Each dot represents data from one HMM model (n = 56) on the left and one thresholding model (n = 23; one for each threshold applied across the four frequency bands) on the right. ***P < 0.001.