长期慢性阻塞性脑损伤患者与恢复正常患者在大脑结构和认知能力方面的差异

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 NEUROIMAGING NeuroImage Pub Date : 2024-09-22 DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120859
Breanna K. Nelson , Lea N. Farah , Ava Grier , Wayne Su , Johnson Chen , Vesna Sossi , Mypinder S. Sekhon , A. Jon Stoessl , Cheryl Wellington , William G. Honer , Donna Lang , Noah D. Silverberg , William J. Panenka
{"title":"长期慢性阻塞性脑损伤患者与恢复正常患者在大脑结构和认知能力方面的差异","authors":"Breanna K. Nelson ,&nbsp;Lea N. Farah ,&nbsp;Ava Grier ,&nbsp;Wayne Su ,&nbsp;Johnson Chen ,&nbsp;Vesna Sossi ,&nbsp;Mypinder S. Sekhon ,&nbsp;A. Jon Stoessl ,&nbsp;Cheryl Wellington ,&nbsp;William G. Honer ,&nbsp;Donna Lang ,&nbsp;Noah D. Silverberg ,&nbsp;William J. Panenka","doi":"10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The pathophysiology of protracted symptoms after COVID-19 is unclear. This study aimed to determine if long-COVID is associated with differences in baseline characteristics, markers of white matter diffusivity in the brain, and lower scores on objective cognitive testing.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Individuals who experienced COVID-19 symptoms for more than 60 days post-infection (long-COVID) (<em>n</em> = 56) were compared to individuals who recovered from COVID-19 within 60 days of infection (normal recovery) (<em>n</em> = 35). Information regarding physical and mental health, and COVID-19 illness was collected. The National Institute of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery was administered. Participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Tract-based spatial statistics were used to perform a whole-brain voxel-wise analysis on standard DTI metrics (fractional anisotropy, axial diffusivity, mean diffusivity, radial diffusivity), controlling for age and sex. NIH Toolbox Age-Adjusted Fluid Cognition Scores were used to compare long-COVID and normal recovery groups, covarying for Age-Adjusted Crystallized Cognition Scores and years of education. False discovery rate correction was applied for multiple comparisons.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were no significant differences in age, sex, or history of neurovascular risk factors between the groups. The long-COVID group had significantly (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05) lower mean diffusivity than the normal recovery group across multiple white matter regions, including the internal capsule, anterior and superior corona radiata, corpus callosum, superior fronto-occiptal fasciculus, and posterior thalamic radiation. However, the effect sizes of these differences were small (all <span><math><mi>β</mi></math></span>&lt;|0.3|) and no significant differences were found for the other DTI metrics. Fluid cognition composite scores did not differ significantly between the long-COVID and normal recovery groups (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Differences in diffusivity between long-COVID and normal recovery groups were found on only one DTI metric. This could represent subtle areas of pathology such as gliosis or edema, but the small effect sizes and non-specific nature of the diffusion indices make pathological inference difficult. Although long-COVID patients reported many neuropsychiatric symptoms, significant differences in objective cognitive performance were not found.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19299,"journal":{"name":"NeuroImage","volume":"300 ","pages":"Article 120859"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in brain structure and cognitive performance between patients with long-COVID and those with normal recovery\",\"authors\":\"Breanna K. Nelson ,&nbsp;Lea N. Farah ,&nbsp;Ava Grier ,&nbsp;Wayne Su ,&nbsp;Johnson Chen ,&nbsp;Vesna Sossi ,&nbsp;Mypinder S. Sekhon ,&nbsp;A. Jon Stoessl ,&nbsp;Cheryl Wellington ,&nbsp;William G. Honer ,&nbsp;Donna Lang ,&nbsp;Noah D. Silverberg ,&nbsp;William J. Panenka\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120859\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The pathophysiology of protracted symptoms after COVID-19 is unclear. This study aimed to determine if long-COVID is associated with differences in baseline characteristics, markers of white matter diffusivity in the brain, and lower scores on objective cognitive testing.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Individuals who experienced COVID-19 symptoms for more than 60 days post-infection (long-COVID) (<em>n</em> = 56) were compared to individuals who recovered from COVID-19 within 60 days of infection (normal recovery) (<em>n</em> = 35). Information regarding physical and mental health, and COVID-19 illness was collected. The National Institute of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery was administered. Participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Tract-based spatial statistics were used to perform a whole-brain voxel-wise analysis on standard DTI metrics (fractional anisotropy, axial diffusivity, mean diffusivity, radial diffusivity), controlling for age and sex. NIH Toolbox Age-Adjusted Fluid Cognition Scores were used to compare long-COVID and normal recovery groups, covarying for Age-Adjusted Crystallized Cognition Scores and years of education. False discovery rate correction was applied for multiple comparisons.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were no significant differences in age, sex, or history of neurovascular risk factors between the groups. The long-COVID group had significantly (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.05) lower mean diffusivity than the normal recovery group across multiple white matter regions, including the internal capsule, anterior and superior corona radiata, corpus callosum, superior fronto-occiptal fasciculus, and posterior thalamic radiation. However, the effect sizes of these differences were small (all <span><math><mi>β</mi></math></span>&lt;|0.3|) and no significant differences were found for the other DTI metrics. Fluid cognition composite scores did not differ significantly between the long-COVID and normal recovery groups (<em>p</em> &gt; 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Differences in diffusivity between long-COVID and normal recovery groups were found on only one DTI metric. This could represent subtle areas of pathology such as gliosis or edema, but the small effect sizes and non-specific nature of the diffusion indices make pathological inference difficult. Although long-COVID patients reported many neuropsychiatric symptoms, significant differences in objective cognitive performance were not found.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NeuroImage\",\"volume\":\"300 \",\"pages\":\"Article 120859\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NeuroImage\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811924003562\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROIMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NeuroImage","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811924003562","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景COVID-19后长期症状的病理生理学尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定长期COVID-19症状是否与基线特征、脑白质弥散标记物以及客观认知测试得分较低等方面的差异有关。收集了有关身心健康和 COVID-19 疾病的信息。对参与者进行了美国国立卫生研究院工具箱认知测试。参与者接受了磁共振成像(MRI)和弥散张量成像(DTI)。在控制年龄和性别的前提下,使用基于瓣膜的空间统计对标准 DTI 指标(分数各向异性、轴向扩散率、平均扩散率、径向扩散率)进行全脑体素分析。美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)工具箱年龄调整后流体认知分数用于比较长期COVID组和正常恢复组,并与年龄调整后结晶认知分数和受教育年限进行协整。结果两组在年龄、性别或神经血管危险因素史方面无显著差异。在多个白质区域,长期COVID组的平均扩散率明显低于正常恢复组(p < 0.05),这些区域包括内囊、放射冠前部和上部、胼胝体、前枕上筋束和丘脑后部放射区。然而,这些差异的效应大小很小(均为 β<|0.3|),而且其他 DTI 指标也没有发现显著差异。流体认知综合评分在长期 COVID 组和正常恢复组之间没有显著差异(p >0.05)。这可能代表了神经胶质增生或水肿等微妙的病理区域,但由于扩散指数的效应小且无特异性,因此很难进行病理推断。尽管长期COVID患者报告了许多神经精神症状,但在客观认知表现方面并未发现显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Differences in brain structure and cognitive performance between patients with long-COVID and those with normal recovery

Background

The pathophysiology of protracted symptoms after COVID-19 is unclear. This study aimed to determine if long-COVID is associated with differences in baseline characteristics, markers of white matter diffusivity in the brain, and lower scores on objective cognitive testing.

Methods

Individuals who experienced COVID-19 symptoms for more than 60 days post-infection (long-COVID) (n = 56) were compared to individuals who recovered from COVID-19 within 60 days of infection (normal recovery) (n = 35). Information regarding physical and mental health, and COVID-19 illness was collected. The National Institute of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery was administered. Participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). Tract-based spatial statistics were used to perform a whole-brain voxel-wise analysis on standard DTI metrics (fractional anisotropy, axial diffusivity, mean diffusivity, radial diffusivity), controlling for age and sex. NIH Toolbox Age-Adjusted Fluid Cognition Scores were used to compare long-COVID and normal recovery groups, covarying for Age-Adjusted Crystallized Cognition Scores and years of education. False discovery rate correction was applied for multiple comparisons.

Results

There were no significant differences in age, sex, or history of neurovascular risk factors between the groups. The long-COVID group had significantly (p < 0.05) lower mean diffusivity than the normal recovery group across multiple white matter regions, including the internal capsule, anterior and superior corona radiata, corpus callosum, superior fronto-occiptal fasciculus, and posterior thalamic radiation. However, the effect sizes of these differences were small (all β<|0.3|) and no significant differences were found for the other DTI metrics. Fluid cognition composite scores did not differ significantly between the long-COVID and normal recovery groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Differences in diffusivity between long-COVID and normal recovery groups were found on only one DTI metric. This could represent subtle areas of pathology such as gliosis or edema, but the small effect sizes and non-specific nature of the diffusion indices make pathological inference difficult. Although long-COVID patients reported many neuropsychiatric symptoms, significant differences in objective cognitive performance were not found.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
NeuroImage
NeuroImage 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
809
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: NeuroImage, a Journal of Brain Function provides a vehicle for communicating important advances in acquiring, analyzing, and modelling neuroimaging data and in applying these techniques to the study of structure-function and brain-behavior relationships. Though the emphasis is on the macroscopic level of human brain organization, meso-and microscopic neuroimaging across all species will be considered if informative for understanding the aforementioned relationships.
期刊最新文献
Differentiating atypical parkinsonian syndromes with hyperbolic few-shot contrastive learning Exploring the relationship between hallucination proneness and brain morphology Biological mechanism of sex differences in mental rotation: Evidence from multimodal MRI, transcriptomic and receptor/transporter data. Different oscillatory mechanisms of dementia-related diseases with cognitive impairment in closed-eye state. Generative Modeling of the Circle of Willis Using 3D-StyleGAN.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1