| Literature DB >> 35530016 |
Shilei Zheng1, Han Wang2, Fang Han3, Jianyi Chu1, Fan Zhang4, Xianglin Zhang1, Yuxiu Shi3, Lili Zhang5.
Abstract
Background: Radiomics is characterized by high-throughput extraction of texture features from medical images and the mining of information that can potentially be used to define neuroimaging markers in many neurological or psychiatric diseases. However, there have been few studies concerning MRI radiomics in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The study's aims were to appraise changes in microstructure of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) in a PTSD animal model, specifically single-prolonged stress (SPS) rats, by using MRI texture analysis. The feasibility of using a radiomics approach to classify PTSD rats was examined.Entities:
Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging; medial prefrontal cortex; post-traumatic stress disorder; radiomics; single prolonged stress; texture analysis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35530016 PMCID: PMC9068999 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.805851
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Figure 1Spatial registration between MR images and histology (Paxinos and Watson, The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates, 6th edition). (A,B) Sagittal T2W images and consecutive coronal T2W images of mPFC. Detailed range (rectangles) in mPFC slices and MR images considered for immunofluorescence quantification and texture extraction, as shown in (C,D).
Figure 2Behavioral test results. (A) Number of entries into open and closed arms. (B) Average distance traveled in open and closed arms. (C) Residence time in open and closed arms. (D) Percentage of swimming time in target quadrant. (E) Percentage of swimming distance in target quadrant. (F) ELT in 5 test days. *P < 0.05 vs. control group.
Numbers of rats examined by MRI and the numbers of sampled ROIs.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Numbers of rats | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 |
| Numbers of ROIs | 50 | 50 | 50 | 45 | 50 |
Figure 3Visualization of radiomics based on T2W images in mPFC. Cluster map of T2W-image radiomics in mPFC, with 245 ROIs (samples) from control and SPS groups on the x axis and 262 radiomic features on the y axis. Each feature was normalized to zero mean and unit standard variance. The ROIs of a given cluster (adjacent columns) shared similar radiomic features in correlation distance.
Figure 4Dimensionality reduction of features with LASSO regression between control and each SPS group. Each colored line represent coefficients of texture features, which are plotted vs. ln(lambda) in the mPFC radiomics signatures between the control and each SPS group: (A) control vs. SPS 1d; (C) control vs. SPS 4d; (E) control vs. SPS 7d; (G) control vs. SPS 14d. The binomial deviances are plotted vs. ln(lambda) in mPFC radiomics signatures between control and each SPS group: (B) control vs. SPS 1d; (D) control vs. SPS 4d; (F) control vs. SPS 7d; (H) control vs. SPS 14d. Red points indicate average values of deviance for each lambda; two dotted vertical lines correspond to lambda in minimum criteria and one standard error of minimum criteria.
Optimal mPFC features after dimensionality reduction between the control and each SPS group via LASSO regression.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Control vs. SPS 1d | −26.323 | S(1,0)SumAverg (−0.113); S(1,0)SumEntrp (0.678); S(0,1)SumEntrp (0.423); S(2,0)InvDfMom (4.703); S(0,2)Correlat (−2.241); S(0,2)InvDfMom (−5.431); S(2,2)DifVarnc (−0.008); S(2,-2)Contrast (0.007); S(4,0)InvDfMom (−15.567); S(4,4)InvDfMom (−2.478); S(4,-4)DifEntrp (3.256); S(5,0)Contrast (−0.003); S(5,0)Correlat (0.180); S(5,0)InvDfMom (1.569); S(5,0)SumAverg (0.011); S(0,5)DifVarnc (0.030); S(5,5)SumAverg (0.039); S(5,5)SumEntrp (4.152); S(5,-5)SumVarnc (−0.002); 45dgr_RLNonUni (0.123); GrNonZeros (9.046) |
| Control vs. SPS 4d | −4.487e+01 | S(1,0)SumAverg (−1.795e-01); S(0,1)Correlat (−1.470e+00); S(2,0)InvDfMom (2.181e+01); S(2,0)DifEntrp (2.942e+00); S(0,2)InvDfMom (−4.939e+00); S(0,2)SumVarnc (−4.707e-04); S(2,2)SumOfSqs (−1.966e-02); S(2,2)DifVarnc (−1.453e-02); S(2,-2)SumVarnc (−7.999e-03); S(3,0)InvDfMom (−6.434e+00); S(3,3)DifVarnc (−1.026e-02); S(4,0)InvDfMom (−1.061e+01); S(4,4)InvDfMom (−2.443e+00); S(4,-4)DifEntrp (6.212e+00); S(5,0)Contrast (−6.959e-03); S(0,5)DifVarnc (1.060e-02); S(5,5)SumEntrp (1.823e+00); Horzl_LngREmph (2.518e-02); Vertl_RLNonUni (1.930e-02); 45dgr_Fraction (4.565e+01); 135dr_ShrtREmp (−1.150e+01); GrMean (1.516e+00); GrNonZeros (1.511e+01) |
| Control vs. SPS 7d | −48.294 | MinNorm (0.104); Kurtosis (0.153); S(1,1)InvDfMom (−2.713); S(1,1)DifVarnc (0.085); S(1,-1)Contrast (−0.002); S(1,-1)InvDfMom (14.507); S(3,-3)InvDfMom (0.354); S(4,0)InvDfMom (−2.992); S(5,0)InvDfMom(−4.858); S(5,0)SumAverg (0.201); S(0,5)DifVarnc (0.003); S(5,5)DifVarnc (0.002); GrNonZeros (14.086); Teta3 (2.679) |
| Control vs. SPS 14d | −2.511e+01 | MinNorm (8.246e-02); S(2,0)InvDfMom (3.396e-02); S(2,0)SumAverg (−4.167e-02); S(0,2)InvDfMom (−5.022e+00); S(2,2)SumVarnc (−4.633e-03); S(2,-2)SumAverg (−3.943e-03); S(3,-3)SumAverg (−4.006e-02); S(4,0)InvDfMom (−1.827e+01); S(4,0)DifVarnc (−5.782e-03); S(5,0)Correlat (1.598e+00); S(5,0)SumAverg (1.341e-01); S(5,0)SumVarnc (1.653e-03); S(5,0)DifVarnc (−7.598e-03); S(5,5)Contrast (−2.789e-04); S(5,5)DifVarnc (−2.237e-03); Horzl_LngREmph (1.750e+00); 45dgr_ShrtREmp (1.058e+01) |
Figure 5Features dimensionality reduction with LASSO regression among four SPS groups. Each colored line represent coefficients of texture features, which plot vs. ln(lambda) in mPFC radiomics signatures between each SPS groups: (A) SPS 1d vs. SPS 4d; (C) SPS 1d vs. SPS 7d; (E) SPS 1d vs. SPS 14d; (G) SPS 4d vs. SPS 7d; (I) SPS 4d vs. SPS 14d; (K) SPS 7d vs. SPS 14d. The binomial deviances were plotted vs. ln(lambda) in mPFC radiomics signatures between each SPS groups: (B) SPS 1d vs. SPS 4d; (D) SPS 1d vs. SPS 7d; (F) SPS 1d vs. SPS 14d; (H) SPS 4d vs. SPS 7d; (J) SPS 4d vs. SPS 14d; (L) SPS 7d vs. SPS 14d.
Optimal mPFC features after dimensionality reduction among four SPS groups via LASSO regression.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| SPS 1d vs. SPS 4d | −1.177e+01 | MinNorm (6.278e-02); S(2,0)SumOfSqs (9.153e-03); S(2,-2)SumOfSqs (1.334e-02); S(3,-3)Correlat (1.802e-01); S(3,-3)SumVarnc (6.736e-04); S(4,-4)Contrast (−4.929e-04); S(5,0)SumOfSqs (−2.089e-03); S(5,0)InvDfMom (−5.440e+00); S(5,0)DifVarnc (−2.695e-04); GrSkewness (5.052e-02) |
| SPS 1d vs. SPS 7d | −9.741 | S(1,0)DifEntrp (−0.121); S(1,1)SumVarnc (0.001); S(1,-1)Correlat (1.926); S(2,0)InvDfMom (−2.477); S(2,0)DifVarnc (−0.027); S(2,2)Correlat (0.179); S(2,2)InvDfMom (12.293); S(0,3)InvDfMom (6.702); S(3,3)SumAverg (−0.049); S(0,4)InvDfMom (18.735); S(5,0)Contrast (0.003); S(5,0)InvDfMom (−1.416); S(0,5)InvDfMom (3.210); S(0,5)DifVarnc (−0.004); S(5,-5)InvDfMom (1.655); S(5,-5)SumAverg (0.038); Teta2 (−3.010); Teta4 (−4.267) |
| SPS 1d vs. SPS 14d | 23.514 | Skewness (−0.450); S(1,0)DifEntrp (−11.303); S(1,1)InvDfMom (−7.960); S(1,-1)InvDfMom (−7.592); S(2,0)SumAverg (−0.484); S(0,2)DifVarnc (−0.083); S(2,2)InvDfMom (2.953); S(2,2)DifVarnc (0.013); S(0,3)SumOfSqs (−0.025); S(0,3)InvDfMom (22.303); S(3,3)DifVarnc (0.013); S(4,0)DifVarnc (−0.001); S(0,4)DifVarnc (−0.029); S(4,4)Entropy (−2.369); S(5,0)SumVarnc (0.027); S(5,0)Entropy (3.405); S(0,5)DifVarnc (−0.014); S(5,5)Contrast (−0.007); S(5,5)SumVarnc (0.003); S(5,5)SumEntrp (3.423); S(5,5)DifVarnc (0.016); S(5,-5)SumOfSqs (0.004); S(5,-5)DifVarnc (0.002); Horzl_LngREmph (3.061); GrVariance (−0.156); Teta1 (2.438); Teta2 (−5.445) |
| SPS 4d vs. SPS 7d | −26.622 | MinNorm (0.132); Perc.01% (0.028); S(0,1)InvDfMom (0.524); S(1,-1)Correlat (0.525); S(1,-1)SumVarnc (0.008); S(1,-1)DifEntrp (−0.297); S(0,2)InvDfMom (12.687); S(2,2)InvDfMom (2.753); S(0,3)InvDfMom (0.302); S(4,4)SumEntrp (−0.536); S(4,4)DifVarnc (0.019); S(5,0)InvDfMom (−27.167); S(5,0)SumAverg (0.079); S(5,5)DifVarnc (0.001); S(5,-5)InvDfMom (2.816); Horzl_ShrtREmp (−11.808); 45dgr_RLNonUni (−0.073); GrKurtosis (−0.236); GrNonZeros (5.767); Teta2 (−0.274); Teta3 (4.306) |
| SPS 4d vs. SPS 14d | −7.730 | MinNorm (0.142); Skewness (−1.296); S(2,0)DifEntrp (−1.964); S(2,2)InvDfMom (7.538); S(2,2)DifVarnc (0.007); S(2,-2)Correlat (2.366); S(2,-2)SumAverg (−0.127); S(0,3)InvDfMom (1.492); S(3,3)DifVarnc (0.001); S(3,-3)SumAverg (−0.190); S(4,-4)Correlat (0.416); S(4,-4)SumEntrp (1.088); S(5,0)InvDfMom (−1.220); S(5,0)Entropy (0.953); S(5,0)DifVarnc (−0.026); S(0,5)Contrast (−0.005); S(0,5)Correlat (0.299); S(0,5)DifVarnc (−0.001); S(5,5)SumVarnc (0.002); Horzl_LngREmph (2.157) |
| SPS 7d vs. SPS 14d | 2.020e+01 | S(1,0)InvDfMom (1.655e+00); S(1,1)Contrast (−1.581e-03); S(1,-1)InvDfMom (−1.715e+01); S(2,0)SumOfSqs (−1.771e-02); S(2,0)InvDfMom (2.394e+01); S(0,2)InvDfMom (−1.110e+01); S(2,2)SumOfSqs (−8.780e-03); S(3,0)DifVarnc (9.913e-03); S(3,3)InvDfMom (−3.492e+00); S(0,4)InvDfMom (−8.386e+00); S(4,-4)Correlat (9.364e-03); S(4,-4)SumVarnc (9.205e-04); S(5,0)Correlat (6.560e-01); S(5,0)InvDfMom (1.203e+01); S(5,0)SumVarnc (3.034e-03); S(0,5)DifVarnc (−4.283e-02); S(5,5)Entropy (−1.489e+00); S(5,5)DifEntrp (−9.448e-01); Horzl_LngREmph (6.066e-01); Teta1 (1.758e-01); Teta3 (−2.076e+00) |
Figure 6mPFC DAPI immunostaining. Representative photomicrographs of DAPI immunostaining are shown in (A–E) (magnification ×400, Bar = 20 μm): (A) control group; (B) SPS 1d; (C) SPS 4d; (D) SPS 7d; (E) SPS 14d. The normal and abnormal cellular nuclei are shown in the right part of panel (A). Quantitative analysis of fluorescence intensity of cell nuclei in mPFC is shown in panel (F). *P < 0.05 vs. control group.
Figure 7Immunofluorescence observations of GFAP in mPFC. Representative images of GFAP immunoreactivity (IR) and results analysis in mPFC (magnification ×400, Bar = 20 μm): (A) control group; (B) SPS 1d; (C) SPS 4d; (D) SPS 7d; (E) SPS 14d. (F) Quantity analysis of GFAP-IR expression in mPFC in each group. *P < 0.05 vs. control group.
Figure 8Immunofluorescence observation of NeuN in mPFC. Representative images of NeuN-IR and results analysis in mPFC (magnification ×400, Bar = 20 μm): (A) control group; (B) SPS 1d; (C) SPS 4d; (D) SPS 7d; (E) SPS 14d. (F) Quantity analysis of NeuN-IR expression in mPFC in each group. *P < 0.05 vs. control group.
Figure 9Number of NeuN- and GFAP-positive cells. (A) number of GFAP-positive cells in mPFC of control and SPS groups; (B) number of NeuN-positive cells in mPFC of control and SPS groups. *P < 0.05 vs. control group.