| Literature DB >> 35821766 |
Mingqiang Gong1,2, Yunxia Shen2, Wenbin Liang2, Zhen Zhang3, Chunxue He4, Mingwu Lou2, ZiYu Xu2.
Abstract
Purpose: Methamphetamine use may cause severe neurotoxicity and cognitive impairment, leading to addiction, overdose, and high rates of relapse. However, few studies have systematically focused on functional impairments detected by neuroimaging in methamphetamine abstainers (MAs) during short-term abstinence. This study aimed to investigate effective connectivity, resting-state networks, and internetwork functional connectivity in MA brains to improve clinical treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Granger causality analysis; abstinence; independent component analysis; methamphetamine; network
Year: 2022 PMID: 35821766 PMCID: PMC9271316 DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S369571
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Gen Med ISSN: 1178-7074
Demographic and Substance Use Characteristics of MAs and HCs
| Characteristics | MA (n=20) | HA (n=27) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic Variables | |||
| Age (y) | 31.9 (6.4) | 30.9 (7.7) | 0.639 |
| Sex (female/male) | 5/20 | 1/27 | 0.043* |
| Education (y) | 9.5 (2.4) | 10.0 (2.1) | 0.377 |
| Methamphetamine Use Variables | |||
| Duration (y) | 7.3 (6.5) | NA | NA |
| Range (y) | 1–20 | NA | NA |
| Methamphetamine dose | |||
| Amount (g/day) | 0.179 (0.234) | NA | NA |
| Total amount (g) | 800 (1689.5) | NA | NA |
| Range (g) | 2.2–7300.0 | NA | NA |
| Abstinence (day) | 60 (40) | NA | NA |
| Tobacco Use Variables | |||
| Smoker number | 20 | 27 | NA |
| Amount (number/day) | 11.2 (6.9) | 13.2 (7.4) | 0.334 |
Note: *p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: MA, methamphetamine abstainer; HC, healthy control; y, years; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 1A significant difference in ALFF regions between the MA group and the HC group. Significant P-value with FDR correction (P < 0.05). The red zone means regions with increased ALFF, and the blue zone means regions with decreased ALFF.
Regions with Significant Dysfunction Based on ALFF Between MAs and HCs
| Regions | Voxels | X | Y | Z | Peak z-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Posterior cingulate gyrus L | 25 | −7 | −42 | 16 | −5.453 |
| Superior parietal lobule L | 21 | −15 | −72 | 51 | 5.780 |
| Inferior parietal lobule L | 24 | −30 | −50 | 45 | 4.071 |
| Supplementary motor area L | 28 | −3 | 6 | 69 | 5.526 |
| Precuneus R | 42 | 10 | −43 | 58 | 5.037 |
| Precuneus L | 28 | −19 | −45 | 3 | −5.006 |
| Superior frontal gyrus L | 24 | −21 | 12 | 66 | 4.693 |
| Middle frontal gyrus L | 23 | −42 | 15 | 37 | −5.720 |
| Precentral gyrus R | 114 | 30 | −21 | 69 | 7.255 |
| Precentral gyrus L | 51 | −23 | −21 | 68 | 4.620 |
| Cerebellum Crus2 L | 26 | −33 | −70 | −39 | −4.261 |
| Inferior temporal gyrus R | 30 | 56 | −33 | −26 | −4.804 |
| Inferior temporal gyrus L | 90 | −42 | −3 | −36 | −6.313 |
| Fusiform L | 41 | −33 | −12 | −31 | −5.588 |
| Calcarine R | 26 | 18 | −58 | 17 | 5.535 |
| Postcentral gyrus R | 72 | 57 | −21 | 46 | 6.554 |
| Postcentral gyrus L | 53 | −37 | −22 | 45 | 5.090 |
| Middle cingulate gyrus R | 30 | 11 | −20 | 39 | 5.128 |
| Middle cingulate gyrus L | 35 | −3 | −39 | 54 | 6.324 |
| Paracentral lobule R | 25 | 6 | −31 | 58 | 4.513 |
| Paracentral lobule L | 43 | −4 | −24 | 58 | 4.835 |
Note: X, Y and Z coordinates are Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) coordinates.
Figure 2A significant difference in effective connectivity between the MA group and the HC group. (A) Decreased EC from the left PCC to the left precuneus. (B) Decreased EC from the left IPL to the left MFG. (C) Increased EC from the left precuneus to the left MFG. (D) Decreased EC from the right precuneus to the left PCC. (E) Increased EC from the right precuneus to the left SMA. (F) Increased EC from the left MFG to the left PCC. (G) Increased EC from the left MFG to the left SMA. (H) Increased EC from the left precuneus to the left PCC.
Figure 3Alteration Effective connectivity between two groups. (A) Effective connectivity from ROI X to ROI Y. (B) Effective connectivity from ROI Y to ROI X. (C) Effective connectivity of the whole brain. Red nodes indicate regions with increased ALFF, and blue nodes suggest regions with decreased ALFF. Red arrows represent hyper-effective connectivity, and green arrows represent hypo-effective connectivity.
Figure 4Functional associated resting-state networks (RSNs). The spatial maps of 15 independent components were identified and classified as RSNs for function network connectivity analysis.
Figure 5Group significant differences of inter-network connectivity.