SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Abnormal Topological Network in Parkinson's Disease With Impulse Control Disorders: A Resting-State Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.

Front Neurosci · 2021-08-23

DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.651710PMID: 34497483

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

In recent years, neuroimaging evidence shows that the brains of Parkinson disease (PD) with impulse control disorders (ICDs) patients have functional disconnection changes. However, so far, it is still unclear whether the topological organization is damaged in PD patients with ICD. In this study, we aimed to explore the functional brain network in 18 patients with PD with ICDs (PD-ICD) and 18 patients with PD without ICDs (PD-nICD) by using functional magnetic resonance imaging and graph theory approach. We found that the PD-ICD patients had increased clustering coefficient and characteristic path length, while decreased small-world index compared with PD-nICD patients. Furthermore, we explored the hypothesis whether the abnormality of the small-world network parameters of PD-ICD patients is accompanied by the change of nodal centrality. As we hypothesized, the nodal centralities of the default mode network, control network, and dorsal attention network were found to be significantly damaged in the PD-ICD group compared with the PD-nICD group. Our study provides more evidence for PD-ICD patients' brain network abnormalities from the perspective of information exchange, which may be the underlying pathophysiological basis of brain abnormalities in PD-ICD patients.

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.