Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Non-stationarity in the "resting brain's" modular architecture
Jones DT, Vemuri P, Murphy MC, Gunter JL, Senjem ML, Machulda MM, Przybelski SA, Gregg BE et al.. PloS one, 2012-06-28
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Task-free functional magnetic resonance imaging (TF-fMRI) has great potential for advancing the understanding and treatment of neurologic illness. However, as with all measures of neural activity, variability is a hallmark of intrinsic connectivity networks (ICNs) identified by TF-fMRI. This variability has hampered efforts to define a robust metric of connectivity suitable as a biomarker for neurologic illness. We hypothesized that some of this variability rather than representing noise in the measurement process, is related to a fundamental feature of connectivity within ICNs, which is their non-stationary nature. To test this hypothesis, we used a large (n = 892) population-based sample of older subjects to construct a well characterized atlas of 68 functional regions, which were categorized based on independent component analysis network of origin, anatomical locations, and a functional meta-analysis. These regions were then used to construct dynamic graphical representations of brain connectivity within a sliding time window for each subject. This allowed us to demonstrate the non-stationary nature of the brain's modular organization and assign each region to a "meta-modular" group. Using this grouping, we then compared dwell time in strong sub-network configurations of the default mode network (DMN) between 28 subjects with Alzheimer's dementia and 56 cognitively normal elderly subjects matched 1:2 on age, gender, and education. We found that differences in connectivity we and others have previously observed in Alzheimer's disease can be explained by differences in dwell time in DMN sub-network configurations, rather than steady state connectivity magnitude. DMN dwell time in specific modular configurations may also underlie the TF-fMRI findings that have been described in mild cognitive impairment and cognitively normal subjects who are at risk for Alzheimer's dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jones, D. T., Vemuri, P., Murphy, M. C., Gunter, J. L., Senjem, M. L., Machulda, M. M., et al. (2012). Non-stationarity in the "resting brain's" modular architecture. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039731
Vancouver
Jones DT, Vemuri P, Murphy MC, Gunter JL, Senjem ML, Machulda MM, et al. Non-stationarity in the "resting brain's" modular architecture. PloS one. 2012. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039731. PMID: 22761880.
BibTeX
@article{jones2012-22761880,
author = {Jones, D. T. and Vemuri, P. and Murphy, M. C. and Gunter, J. L. and Senjem, M. L. and Machulda, M. M. and Przybelski, S. A. and Gregg, B. E. and others},
title = {{Non-stationarity in the "resting brain's" modular architecture}},
journal = {PloS one},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0039731},
pmid = {22761880},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039731}
}
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.
Key findings
- We found that differences in connectivity we and others have previously observed in Alzheimer's disease can be explained by differences in dwell time in DMN sub-network configurations, rather than steady state connectivity magnitude.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants892
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 76/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for effect reported 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PloS one) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 892 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 22761880) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 44 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100. |
| Total | 76 / 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.
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.