Poster No:
1789
Submission Type:
Abstract Submission
Authors:
Xiaojian Kang1,2, Byung Yoon3, Maheen Adamson4,2,5
Institutions:
1WRIISC-Women, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, 2Rehabilitation Service, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, 3Dept. of Radiology, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 4WRIISC-Women, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, CA, 5Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
First Author:
Xiaojian Kang, PhD
WRIISC-Women, VA Palo Alto Health Care System|Rehabilitation Service, VA Palo Alto Health Care System
Palo Alto, CA|Palo Alto, CA
Co-Author(s):
Maheen Adamson, PhD
WRIISC-Women, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System|Rehabilitation Service, VA Palo Alto Health Care System|Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine
Palo Alto, CA|Palo Alto, CA|Stanford, CA
Introduction:
Background/Introduction. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is among the most frequent causes of death and disability following traumas [1]. Structural (SC) and functional (FC) connectivity to evaluate network properties across the entire spectrum of brain injury from mild [2, 3] to moderate and severe TBI [4]. The main aim of the study is to explore the correlation between SC and FC, and detect any differences of SC and FC between TBI patients and control group.
Methods:
Methods. A total of forty-six participants were recruited for the study. The participants were divided into 3 groups with matched age and education: (1) Control group (CG) of 13 participants (6 females, age: 33.4 ± 9.8 yrs); 2) Group of 16 TBI patients without cognitive chronic symptoms (TBIncs; 9 females, age: 37.4 ± 13.9 yrs); (3) Group of 17 TBIs with one or more self-reported chronic symptoms (TBIcs; 5 females, age: 37.5 ± 9.4 years). All imaging data were acquired on a GE 3T Discovery MR750 at VAPAHCS. For each participant, one high-resolution T1W image was collected: TR = 7.3 ms, TE = 3.0 ms, flip angle = 11o, voxel size = 0.6 1.05 1.05 mm, 392 sagittal slices. Two DWI scans were acquired: TR = 6600 ms, TE = 80 ms, voxel size = 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 mm, b = 3000 s/mm2, 30 non-linear directions, 5 non-diffusion (b = 0) volumes. One resting state functional MRI (rsfMRI) scan was acquired: TR = 2000 ms, TE = 30 ms, flip angle = 80o, voxel size = 3.75 x 3.75 x 4.0 mm, 240 frames/8 min.
The T1W anatomical images were processed using FreeSurfer 7.0 [5], which provides 34 cortical parcels from the DK parcellations [6] for each hemisphere. The diffusion-weighted images (DWIs) were processed using the software package Mrtrix3 [7]. SC data were collected for all the connections between the 68 parcels for all the participants. RsfMRI data were processed using CONN toolbox [8]. FC were obtained for the same 68 DK parcels for all the subjects. The correlation between SC and FC were explored. SC and FC were also compared between subject groups. The significance level was set at p < .05. Benjamini-Hochberg algorithm was applied to perform the false discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons [9].
Results:
Results: Correlation between SC and FC is 11.5% and 11.9% stronger for TBIncs, and TBIcs compared to CG, respectively. SC reduction was observed in 4 parcels and 6 parcel clusters for TBIcs but only one cluster for TBIncs compared to CG. On the other hand, FC reduction was observed only in one cluster for TBIncs but in one parcel and two parcel clusters for TBIncs compared to CG, respectively.
Conclusions:
Conclusions: Abnormal FC may be the result of damage to specific functional areas, or damage to the SC between functional areas. Combined assessment of SC and FC may provide a unique predictive model for clinical outcomes based on injury severity.
Disorders of the Nervous System:
Psychiatric (eg. Depression, Anxiety, Schizophrenia) 2
Modeling and Analysis Methods:
fMRI Connectivity and Network Modeling 1
Multivariate Approaches
Neuroanatomy, Physiology, Metabolism and Neurotransmission:
Anatomy and Functional Systems
Novel Imaging Acquisition Methods:
Anatomical MRI
Keywords:
FUNCTIONAL MRI
STRUCTURAL MRI
Trauma
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
Provide references using author date format
References
1. Rubiano, A.M., et al., Global neurotrauma research challenges and opportunities. Nature, 2015. 527(7578): p. S193-7.
2. Raizman, R., et al., Traumatic Brain Injury Severity in a Network Perspective: A Diffusion MRI Based Connectome Study. Sci Rep, 2020. 10(1): p. 9121.
3. Yuan, W., et al., Changes in Structural Connectivity Following a Cognitive Intervention in Children With Traumatic Brain Injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2017. 31(2): p. 190-201.
4. Sours, C., et al., Structural and Functional Integrity of the Intraparietal Sulcus in Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. J Neurotrauma, 2017. 34(7): p. 1473-1481.
5. Fischl, B., et al., High-resolution intersubject averaging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface. Hum Brain Mapp, 1999. 8(4): p. 272-84.
6. Desikan, R.S., et al., An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. Neuroimage, 2006. 31(3): p. 968-80.
7. Tournier, J.D., et al., MRtrix3: A fast, flexible and open software framework for medical image processing and visualisation. Neuroimage, 2019. 202: p. 116137.
8. Whitfield-Gabrieli, S. and A. Nieto-Castanon, Conn: a functional connectivity toolbox for correlated and anticorrelated brain networks. Brain Connect, 2012. 2(3): p. 125-41.
9. Benjamini, Y. and Y. Hochberg, Controlling The False Discovery Rate - A Practical And Powerful Approach To Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 1995. 57: p. 289-300.