SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Aberrant Intra- and Internetwork Functional Connectivity in Depressed Parkinson's Disease.

Sci Rep · 2017-05-31

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02127-yPMID: 28566724

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Much is known concerning the underlying mechanisms of Parkinson's disease (PD) with depression, but our understanding of this disease at the neural-system level remains incomplete. This study used resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) and independent component analysis (ICA) to investigate intrinsic functional connectivity (FC) within and between large-scale neural networks in 20 depressed PD (dPD) patients, 35 non-depressed PD (ndPD) patients, and 34 healthy controls (HC). To alleviate the influence caused by ICA model order selection, this work reported results from analyses at 2 levels (low and high model order). Within these two analyses, similar results were obtained: 1) dPD and ndPD patients relative to HC had reduced FC in basal ganglia network (BGN); 2) dPD compared with ndPD patients exhibited increased FC in left frontoparietal network (LFPN) and salience network (SN), and decreased FC in default-mode network (DMN); 3) dPD patients compared to HC showed increased FC between DMN and LFPN. Additionally, connectivity anomalies in the DMN, LFPN and SN correlated with the depression severity in patients with PD. Our findings confirm the involvement of BGN, DMN, LFPN and SN in depression in PD, facilitating the development of more detailed and integrative neural models of PD with depression.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.