4.7 Review

Frontoparietal areas link impairments of large-scale intrinsic brain networks with aberrant fronto-striatal interactions in OCD: a meta-analysis of resting-state functional connectivity

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 87, 期 -, 页码 151-160

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.01.016

关键词

Obsessive-compulsive disorder; Resting-state fMRI; Meta-analysis; Functional connectivity; Intrinsic brain networks; Fronto-striatal circuitry; Triple network model

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [KO 3744/7-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neuroimaging studies report evidence for two distinct pathophysiological models of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD): disrupted fronto-striatal circuits and impaired large-scale fronto-parietal-limbic intrinsic brain networks, defined by functionally connected (FC) infra-slow oscillations in ongoing brain activity. To synthesize this literature and overcome inconsistencies, we conducted a coordinate-based meta-analysis of 18 whole-brain resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies (541 patients, 572 healthy controls) comparing seed-based FC between OCD patients and healthy controls. In patients, the meta-analysis revealed (1) consistent hypoconnectivity within frontoparietal and salience network, and between salience, frontoparietal and default-mode network, and (2) consistent general dysconnectivity (no specific direction of connectivity change) within default-mode and frontoparietal network, as well as between frontoparietal, default-mode, and salience networks. Between-network hypoconnectivity provides evidence for the triple-network model in OCD, while aberrant within-network connectivity of frontoparietal and striatal regions supports reports of aberrant fronto-striatal circuitry. Therefore, results corroborate both models of OCD pathophysiology and link them by underlining the importance of intrinsic connectivity of frontoparietal regions which are common to both models.

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