4.7 Article

Larger volume and different functional connectivity of the amygdala in women with premenstrual syndrome

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 1900-1908

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5206-0

关键词

Premenstrual syndrome; Amygdala; Magnetic resonance imaging; Brain; Neuroimaging

资金

  1. Guangxi Natural Science Foundation [2017JJB10213, 2016GXNSFAA380086, 2011GXNSFA018176]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81760886, 81471738, 81303060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess structural and functional changes of the amygdala due to premenstrual syndrome (PMS) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Twenty PMS patients and 21 healthy control (HC) subjects underwent a 6-min resting-state fMRI scan during the luteal phase as well as scanning high-resolution T1-weighted images. Subcortical amygdala-related volume and functional connectivity (FC) were estimated between the two groups. Each subject completed a daily record of severity of problems (DRSP) to measure the severity of clinical symptoms. Greater bilateral amygdalae volumes were found in PMS patients compared with HC subjects, and PMS patients had increased FC between the amygdala and certain regions of the frontal cortex (e.g. medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), right precentral gyrus), the right temporal pole and the insula, as well as decreased FC between the bilateral amygdalae and the right orbitofrontal cortex and right hippocampus. The strength of FC between the right amygdala and right precentral gyrus, left ACC and left mPFC were significantly and positively correlated with DRSP scores in PMS patients. Our findings may improve our understanding of the neural mechanisms involved in PMS. aEuro cent Functional and structural MRI used to explore amygdala in PMS patients. aEuro cent Aberrant amygdala structural and functional connectivity were found in PMS patients. aEuro cent Amygdala strength FC was positively correlated with individual clinical symptom scores.

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