4.7 Article

Investigating the predictive value of different resting-state functional MRI parameters in obsessive-compulsive disorder

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL PSYCHIATRY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-018-0362-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation [81671669]
  2. Science and Technology Project of Sichuan Province [2017JQ0001]
  3. National Program for Innovative Research Teams in University of China [81621003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) studies of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have facilitated our understanding of OCD pathophysiology based on its intrinsic activity. However, whether the group difference derived from univariate analysis could be useful for informing the diagnosis of individual OCD patients remains unclear. We aimed to apply multivariate pattern analysis of different rs-fMRI parameters to distinguish drug-naive patients with OCD from healthy control subjects (HCS). Fifty-four drug-naive OCD patients and 54 well-matched HCS were recruited. Four different rs-fMRI parameter maps, including the amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF), fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (fALFF), regional homogeneity (ReHo) and functional connectivity strength (FCS), were calculated. Training of a support vector machine (SVM) classifier using rs-fMRI maps produced voxelwise discrimination maps. Overall, the classification accuracies were acceptable for the four rs-fMRI parameters. Excellent performance was achieved when ALFF maps were employed (accuracy, 95.37%, p < 0.01), good performance was achieved by using ReHo maps, weaker performance was achieved by using fALFF maps, and fair performance was achieved by using FCS maps. The brain regions showing the greatest discriminative power included the prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, precentral gyrus, and occipital lobes. The application of SVM to rs-fMRI features may provide potential power for OCD classification.

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