2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2017.10.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating functional connectivity of executive control network and frontoparietal network in Alzheimer’s disease

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
30
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
4
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While promising results based on group-level comparisons were found [24]; computer-aided individualized eMCI diagnosis is still among the most challenging tasks. Many MCI studies have used resting-state functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (rs-fMRI)-derived brain functional networks (BFNs) for MCI studies [5, 6]; however, most of them are based on mass-univariate analysis, e.g., constructing the default mode network (DMN) and conducting a voxel-wise greedy search for potential group differences within it [5]. While such traditional BFN-based MCI studies yield some statistically significant brain regions [24], they suffer several inherent drawbacks: ( 1 ) mass-univariate analysis usually results in loss of statistical power; ( 2 ) the voxel-wise analysis may lose rich inter-voxel pattern information in the BFNs; and ( 3 ) the severe noise in the rs-fMRI data could overwhelm subtle diagnostic information in eMCI.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While promising results based on group-level comparisons were found [24]; computer-aided individualized eMCI diagnosis is still among the most challenging tasks. Many MCI studies have used resting-state functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (rs-fMRI)-derived brain functional networks (BFNs) for MCI studies [5, 6]; however, most of them are based on mass-univariate analysis, e.g., constructing the default mode network (DMN) and conducting a voxel-wise greedy search for potential group differences within it [5]. While such traditional BFN-based MCI studies yield some statistically significant brain regions [24], they suffer several inherent drawbacks: ( 1 ) mass-univariate analysis usually results in loss of statistical power; ( 2 ) the voxel-wise analysis may lose rich inter-voxel pattern information in the BFNs; and ( 3 ) the severe noise in the rs-fMRI data could overwhelm subtle diagnostic information in eMCI.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This state is characterized by positive connections between DMN and attention network and SN. This state contained FC between brain regions where AD dysconnectivity have been repeatedly reported in previous neuroimaging studies, including the posterior cingulate/precuneus (Sorg et al, 2009; Yokoi et al, 2018), anterior cingulate cortex (Amanzio et al, 2011; Brier et al, 2012), medial temporal cortex (Pasquini et al, 2019; Sorg et al, 2009), and fontal cortex (Zhao et al, 2018). Interestingly, the correlated patterns in FPN-SN-DMN and SMN-sub-VIS states were anti-correlated which indicated that AD patients significantly differ from HC subjects in probability of occurrence of these anti-correlated FC patterns.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Disruption of several resting-state networks in AD have been reported, including the default mode network (DMN), involved in memory formation and retrieval (Andrews-Hanna, 2012) and self-related processing (L. Zhang et al, 2020), frontoparietal network (FPN), flexibly controlling and interacting with other brain networks (Marek & Dosenbach, 2018), the salience network (SN), directing attention toward or away from internal processing in concert with the DMN (Menon & Uddin, 2010), somatomotor network (SMN) and visual network (Mosimann, Felblinger, Ballinari, Hess, & Muri, 2004). Previous studies have ignored dynamic nature of FC and mostly focused on assessing ‘static’ FC which represents mean connectivity over the period of scanning (Damoiseaux, Prater, Miller, & Greicius, 2012; Greicius, Srivastava, Reiss, & Menon, 2004; Sorg, Riedl, Perneczky, Kurz, & Wohlschlager, 2009; Zhao, Lu, Metmer, Li, & Lu, 2018). Most recently, several studies have provided empirical evidences in healthy subjects (Cabral et al, 2017; Larabi et al, 2020; Maleki Balajoo, Asemani, Khadem, & Soltanian-Zadeh, 2020) and psychiatric (Figueroa et al, 2019; Sakoglu et al, 2010) and neurological (Fu et al, 2019; Gu et al, 2020; Jones et al, 2012; Kim et al, 2017; Niu et al, 2019; Schumacher et al, 2019; Sourty et al, 2016) disorders that not only the intrinsic brain FC at rest is dynamic during the period of scanning (Allen et al, 2014; Betzel, Fukushima, He, Zuo, & Sporns, 2016; Chang & Glover, 2010; Hutchison et al, 2013), but also temporal properties of FC reconfiguration over time are associated with symptoms, behavioral and cognitive performance (Cabral et al, 2017; Figueroa et al, 2019; Gu et al, 2020; Larabi et al, 2020; Tian, Li, Wang, & Yu, 2018; Viviano, Raz, Yuan, & Damoiseaux, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reduced parietal activation underpinned the change in topography of class D in AD, supporting the hypothesis of dysfunction of the frontoparietal network. A possible mechanism for this is disrupted frontoparietal white matter integrity, since altered frontoparietal functional and effective connectivity have been reported in recent fMRI studies of AD (Neufang et al, 2011;Zhao et al, 2018).…”
Section: Alterations To Class D and The Frontoparietal Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%