Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Abnormal characterization of dynamic functional connectivity in Alzheimer's disease
Cui Zhao, Wei-Jie Huang, Feng Feng, Bo Zhou, Hong-Xiang Yao, Yan-E Guo, Pan Wang, Lu-Ning Wang et al.. Neural regeneration research, 2022-09
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Numerous studies have shown abnormal brain functional connectivity in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). However, most studies examined traditional resting state functional connections, ignoring the instantaneous connection mode of the whole brain. In this case-control study, we used a new method called dynamic functional connectivity (DFC) to look for abnormalities in patients with AD and aMCI. We calculated dynamic functional connectivity strength from functional magnetic resonance imaging data for each participant, and then used a support vector machine to classify AD patients and normal controls. Finally, we highlighted brain regions and brain networks that made the largest contributions to the classification. We found differences in dynamic function connectivity strength in the left precuneus, default mode network, and dorsal attention network among normal controls, aMCI patients, and AD patients. These abnormalities are potential imaging markers for the early diagnosis of AD.
Key findings
- We found differences in dynamic function connectivity strength in the left precuneus, default mode network, and dorsal attention network among normal controls, aMCI patients, and AD patients.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designcase-control study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a case-control study. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neural regeneration research) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 6 / 12 | A case-control study |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35142691) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 31 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Zhao, C., Huang, W.-J., Feng, F., Zhou, B., Yao, H.-X., Guo, Y.-E., et al. (2022). Abnormal characterization of dynamic functional connectivity in Alzheimer's disease. Neural regeneration research. https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.332161
Vancouver
Zhao C, Huang W.-J, Feng F, Zhou B, Yao H.-X, Guo Y.-E, et al. Abnormal characterization of dynamic functional connectivity in Alzheimer's disease. Neural regeneration research. 2022. doi:10.4103/1673-5374.332161. PMID: 35142691.
BibTeX
@article{zhao2022-35142691,
author = {Zhao, Cui and Huang, Wei-Jie and Feng, Feng and Zhou, Bo and Yao, Hong-Xiang and Guo, Yan-E and Wang, Pan and Wang, Lu-Ning and others},
title = {{Abnormal characterization of dynamic functional connectivity in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Neural regeneration research},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.4103/1673-5374.332161},
pmid = {35142691},
url = {https://doi.org/10.4103/1673-5374.332161}
}
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “connectivity”
187 studies in the library carry the topic tag “connectivity”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 187 tagged studies.