4.7 Article

Volumetric Differences in Cerebellum and Brainstem in Patients with Migraine: A UK Biobank Study

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11092528

关键词

migraine; cerebellum; brainstem; structural MRI; UK Biobank

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that individuals with migraine have larger gray matter volumes in several cerebellar sub-regions, supporting the hypothesis that the cerebellum plays a role in the pathophysiology of migraine.
Background: The cerebellum and the brainstem are two brain structures involved in pain processing and modulation that have also been associated with migraine pathophysiology. The aim of this study was to investigate possible associations between the morphology of the cerebellum and brainstem and migraine, focusing on gray matter differences in these brain areas. Methods: The analyses were based on data from 712 individuals with migraine and 45,681 healthy controls from the UK Biobank study. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the mean gray matter volumetric differences in the brainstem and the cerebellum. The models were adjusted for important biological covariates such as BMI, age, sex, total brain volume, diastolic blood pressure, alcohol intake frequency, current tobacco smoking, assessment center, material deprivation, ethnic background, and a wide variety of health conditions. Secondary analyses investigated volumetric correlation between cerebellar sub-regions. Results: We found larger gray matter volumes in the cerebellar sub-regions V (mean difference: 72 mm3, 95% CI [13, 132]), crus I (mean difference: 259 mm3, 95% CI [9, 510]), VIIIa (mean difference: 120 mm3, 95% CI [0.9, 238]), and X (mean difference: 14 mm3, 95% CI [1, 27]). Conclusions: Individuals with migraine show larger gray matter volumes in several cerebellar sub-regions than controls. These findings support the hypothesis that the cerebellum plays a role in the pathophysiology of migraine.

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