| Literature DB >> 35800085 |
Jacint Sala-Padro1,2, Ariadna Gifreu-Fraixino1, Júlia Miró1,2, Antoni Rodriguez-Fornells2,3,4, Immaculada Rico1, Gerard Plans1, Mila Santurino1, Mercè Falip1, Estela Càmara2,3.
Abstract
Introduction: Learning new verbal information can be impaired in 20-40% of patients after mesial temporal lobe resection. In recent years, understanding epilepsy as a brain network disease, and investigating the relationship between large-scale resting networks and cognition has led to several advances. Aligned studies suggest that it is the integrity of the hippocampal connectivity with these large-scale networks what is relevant for cognition, with evidence showing a functional and structural heterogeneity along the long axis hippocampus bilaterally. Objective: Our aim is to examine whether pre-operative resting-state connectivity along the long hippocampal axis is associated with verbal learning decline after anterior temporal lobe resection.Entities:
Keywords: DMN (default mode network); dorsal attention network (DAN); resting-sate fMRI; temporal lobe epilepsy; verbal learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35800085 PMCID: PMC9253296 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.854313
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.086
Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy patients and controls.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||
| Age (years) | 47 (7.5) | 51.7 (12.1) | 49.5 (11.9) | 0.516 |
| Sex (female) | 6 (54.5%) | 12 (60%) | 11 (61.1%) | 0.937 |
| Age at onset (years) | 18.1 (13.3) | 12.6 (10.4) | 0.207 | |
| Left resection (participants) | 8 (72.7%) | 8 (40%) | 0.081 | |
| HS (participants) | 8 (72.7%) | 16 (80%) | 0.643 | |
| Seizure-free | 6 (54.5%) | 8 (40%) | 0.477 | |
| Post-surgical follow-up | 86 (50) | 93.5 (55) | 0.919 | |
|
| ||||
| Pathological | 2.77 (0.5) | 2.8 (0.5) | 3.33 (0.3) |
|
| Contralateral (Participants) | 3.41 (0.2) | 3.52 (0.2) | 3.41 (0.3) | 0.154 |
| RAVLT pre | 12.2 (2.2) | 11.1 (2.2) | 11.7 (2.4) | 0.472 |
| RAVLT post | 8.2 (1.2) | 11.5 (2.7) | 11.7 (2.8) |
|
Data presented as number (percentage). N, number of participants; HS, Hippocampal Sclerosis; Hipp, Hippocampus; RAVLT, Rey Auditory Verbal learning Test.
At the end of follow-up.
In months, median (range). Significance assessed with the Mann-Whitney test. The bold values indicate the statistically significant.
Resting-state network functional connectivity for controls and patients (p < 0.05 FWE-corrected at whole brain level, cluster extent >20 voxels).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
|
| |||
| L superior medial frontal | 6,803 | −4 48 30 | 32.4 |
| R precuneus | 12 −52 18 | 26.4 | |
| L Precuneus | −6 −58 16 | 25.1 | |
| L Angular gyrus | 2,378 | −42 −72 30 | 25.0 |
| R Angular gyrus | 1,815 | 48 −62 24 | 19.9 |
| L orbitofrontal | 2,912 | 0 62 −2 | 17.6 |
| L medial frontal | 2 64 10 | 15.5 | |
| L parahipocampal | 88 | −24 −38 −14 | 10.3 |
| R middle frontal gyrus | 307 | 24 34 44 | 10.3 |
| R superior frontal gyrus | 26 24 54 | 9.1 | |
| L superior frontal gyrus | 245 | −18 40 48 | 8.5 |
| L middle frontal gyrus | −24 26 50 | 8.1 | |
| L middle temporal gyrus | 102 | −60 0 −22 | 8.3 |
|
| |||
| R Supp motor area | 11,429 | 2 12 64 | 17.8 |
| R Frontal superior medial | 10 22 60 | 17.2 | |
| L Frontal superior medial | −6 62 18 | 16.2 | |
| L Superior parietal | 76 | −8 −58 56 | 8.6 |
| R Superior parietal | 6 −56 54 | 6.2 | |
| R Frontal superior medial | 25 | 18 16 10 | 7.6 |
| L Caudate | 26 | −12 0 16 | 7.2 |
| L middle temporal gyrus | −60 −6 −14 | 7.6 | |
|
| |||
| R Superior parietal | 7,742 | 12 −66 58 | 18.0 |
| L Superior parietal | −8 −60 62 | 15.6 | |
| R Middle frontal gyrus | 1,937 | 24 14 58 | 11.8 |
| L Supp motor area | −2 2 50 | 11.7 | |
| L Mid-cingulate | 2 16 38 | 11.3 | |
| L middle frontal gyrus | 444 | −24 4 58 | 10.9 |
| L Supramarginal | 80 | −58 −28 34 | 8.4 |
| R Posterior cingulate | 81 | 10 −52 8 | 8.3 |
MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute stereotactic space; L, Left, R, right; Supp, Supplementary.
Figure 1On the left, segmentation of both hippocampi, and division along the anterior-posterior axis. On the right, the resting state networks obtained in this study from patients and controls.
Connectivity analysis results for each group.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Anterior hippocampus | DMN | 1.2 (2.6) | 0.009 (2.2) | 1 (2.1) | n.s. |
| DAN | 1.56 (2.5) | −0.86 (2.3) | −0.37 (1.8) |
| |
| EXE | 2.6 (3.5) | −0.61 (2.6) | 1.66 (3.4) | n.s. | |
| Posterior hippocampus | DMN | −1.27 (2.1) | 0.44 (1.9) | 0.96 (1) |
|
| DAN | 0.57 (2.6) | 0.41 (2.3) | 0.12 (2.5) | n.s. | |
| EXE | 0.13 (3.2) | −0.64 (2.1) | −1.1 (2.3) | n.s. | |
| Whole hippocampus | DMN | −0.38 (2.08) | −0.86 (1.96) | 3.64 (2.1) |
|
| DAN | 0.98 (0.98) | 0.13 (1.8) | −1.15 (2) |
| |
| EXE | 0.1 (2.02) | −0.094 (1.96) | −0.13 (2.4) | n.s. | |
|
| |||||
| Anterior hippocampus | DMN | −0.15 (2.8) | 0.29 (2.1) | 1.31 (1.8) |
|
| DAN | 2.1 (2.7) | −0.11 (2.2) | 1.18 (2.3) | n.s. | |
| EXE | 1.92 (1.8) | 0.87 (3.4) | 1.4 (3.7) |
| |
| Posterior hippocampus | DMN | −0.04 (2.3) | 1.61 (1.7) | 1 (1.4) |
|
| DAN | 0.74 (2.6) | 0.44 (2) | 0.81 (2) | n.s. | |
| EXE | −0.002 (2.7) | −1.05 (2.4) | −0.1 (1.9) | n.s. | |
| Whole hippocampus | DMN | −0.81 (1.09) | 0.57 (1.42) | 4.84 (2.05) |
|
| DAN | 0.82 (2.54) | 0.46 (2.18) | −0.82 (2.05) | n.s. | |
| EXE | 0.71 (2.1) | −0.56 (2.34) | 0.12 (1.89) | n.s. | |
Data represents the z-scores across all values of the hippocampal subregions averaged in the different networks, presented as mean (standard deviation).
L-D, learning decline; L-I, learning intact; DMN, Default Mode Network; DAN, Dorsal Attention Network; EXE, Executive Network. Significance was assessed with a MANOVA test as described previously. The bold values indicate the statistically significant.
Figure 2MANOVA results. Significant differences were found among groups in the posterior hippocampi with the DMN and the anterior hippocampi with the DAN and the EXE, although for the latter only with the pathological side. DMN, Default Mode Network; DAN, Dorsal Attentional Network; EXE, Executive Control Network.
Figure 3Main results of the post-hoc analysis among groups connectivity analyses with the DAN and the DMN along the longitudinal axis of the hippocampus. L-I, Learning Intact; L-D, Learning Decline. *Indicates statistical significance p < 0.05.
Figure 4(A) Canonical functions distribution of the discriminant analysis. Function 1 was found to significantly distinguish patients with decline from patients without decline and controls. (B) The connectivity variables with higher load were both for the pathological hippocampus (posterior part indicates connectivity with the DMN, and the anterior portion indicates connectivity with the DAN). DMN, Default Mode Network; DAN, Dorsal Attention Network.
Figure 5ROC curves. On the left, using the anterior/posterior division of the hippocampi (Connectivity measures for the Posterior bilateral hippocampi-DMN and the anterior to-be resected hippocampus-DAN). The area under the curve (AuC) was of 0.835, with an optimal sensitivity of 0.727 and specificity of 0.95. On the right, using the whole hippocampus (also connectivity measures from the bilateral hippocampi-DMN and the to-be resected hippocampus-DAN). The AuC was 0.63, with an optimal sensitivity of 0.46 and specificity of 0.8.