4.7 Article

Default-mode network connectivity in cognitively unimpaired patients with Parkinson disease

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 79, 期 23, 页码 2226-2232

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31827689d6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim
  2. Novartis
  3. Schwarz Pharma/UCB
  4. Solvay
  5. Lundbeck
  6. Bayer Schering Pharma
  7. Biogen-Dompe AG
  8. Merck Serono
  9. Sanofi Aventis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Using resting-state (RS) fMRI, we investigated the functional integrity of the default-mode network (DMN) in cognitively unimpaired patients with Parkinson disease (PD). Methods: RS fMRI at 3 T was collected in 16 cognitively unimpaired patients with PD and 16 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Single-subject and group-level independent component analysis was used to investigate differences in functional connectivity within the DMN in patients with PD and healthy controls. Statistical analysis was performed using BrainVoyager QX. In addition, we used voxel-based morphometry to test whether between-group differences in RS functional connectivity were related to structural abnormalities. Results: Patients with PD compared with controls showed a decreased functional connectivity of the right medial temporal lobe and bilateral inferior parietal cortex within the DMN. Although patients with PD were cognitively unimpaired, the decreased DMN connectivity significantly correlated with cognitive parameters but not with disease duration, motor impairment, or levodopa therapy. The analysis of regional volume differences did not reveal any differences in local gray matter between patients and controls. Conclusions: Our findings revealed a functional disruption of the DMN in cognitively unimpaired patients with PD, in the absence of significant structural differences between patients and controls. We hypothesize that a dysfunction of the DMN connectivity may have a role in the development of cognitive decline in PD. Neurology (R) 2012;79:2226-2232

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据