4.6 Article

Alteration of Cortical Volume and Thickness in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 16, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.848730

Keywords

cortex; myalgic encephalomyelitis; chronic fatigue syndrome; International Consensus Criteria; sub-cortical regions; volume and thickness; clinical measures

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates cortical volumetric and thickness changes in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) patients and healthy controls, revealing differences and abnormal correlations with key symptoms in ME/CFS patients.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) patients suffer from neurocognitive impairment. In this study, we investigated cortical volumetric and thickness changes in ME/CFS patients and healthy controls (HC). We estimated mean surface-based cortical volume and thickness from 18 ME/CFS patients who met International Consensus Criteria (ICC) and 26 HC using FreeSurfer. Vertex-wise analysis showed significant reductions in the caudal middle frontal gyrus (p = 0.0016) and precuneus (p = 0.013) thickness in ME/CFS patients compared with HC. Region based analysis of sub-cortical volumes found that amygdala volume (p = 0.002) was significantly higher in ME/CFS patients compared with HC. We also performed interaction-with-group regressions with clinical measures to test for cortical volume and thickness correlations in ME/CFS with opposite slopes to HC (abnormal). ME/CFS cortical volume and thickness regressions with fatigue, heart-rate variability, heart rate, sleep disturbance score, respiratory rate, and cognitive performance were abnormal. Our study demonstrated different cortical volume and thickness in ME/CFS patients and showed abnormal cortical volume and thickness regressions with key symptoms of ME/CFS patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available