Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure.
Pearson correlations (edges) between all pairs of GM regions (nodes) for a group of subjects. Here the rows/columns denote the nodes, and the warmer colors represent the greater edge weights/connectivity between the nodes. The colored matrices (left column) here show the weighted undirected network, where the edges are associated with the strength of the connection and are undirected (ie, if node j is connected to node k, then node k is also connected to node j), resulting in a symmetric connectivity matrix. The black-white matrices are binary undirected networks, where edges are either 0 or 1, indicating the absence or presence of a connection, and they have no directionality. Nodal correlations are proportional to longer path length. MS-CI shows a warmer matrix than MS-CP or HC.
Tables
- Table 1:
Demographic and clinical characteristics of healthy controls and patients with MS
Characteristics HC MS Total Sample MS-CP MS-CI No. 18 80 55 25 Female sex (No.) (%) 13 (72%) 54 (68%) 41 (75%) 13 (52%)a Age (mean) (SD) (yr) 48.7 (7.2) 51.8 (8.6) 52.7 (8.8) 49.7 (7.9) Education (mean) (SD) (yr) 17.0 (2.9) 15.0 (2.4)b 15.2 (2.2) 14.6 (2.7) Disease duration (mean) (SD) (yr) NA 15.8 (8.9) 15.7 (8.4) 15.9 (9.9) EDSS (mean) (SD) NA 4.3 (2.3) 4.1 (2.4) 4.6 (2.2) T1 lesion load (mean) (SD) NA 4.0 (5.6) 2.8 (3.3) 6.7 (8.3)c T2 lesion load (mean) (SD) NA 15.8 (15.8) 11.8 (11.2) 24.6 (20.5)c Global gray matter volume (mean) (SD) 875.9 (48.9) 748.5 (69.6)d 761.2 (65.9) 720.6 (70.8)a NAWM volume (mean) (SD) 616.2 (39.9) 510.9 (101.3)d 540.9 (56.3) 444.7 (141.5)e Neurocognitive domain score (mean) (SD) Processing −0.17 (0.74) −0.90 (0.99)e −0.43 (0.68) −2.01 (0.65)f Learning 0.12 (0.73) −0.80 (1.29)e −0.093 (0.76) −2.35 (0.74)f Executive functioning 0.50 (0.75) −0.062 (1.12) 0.30 (0.80) −0.85 (1.32)f Visual 0.98 (0.20) 0.55 (0.91) 0.79 (0.86) 0.010 (0.80)f Language −0.70 (0.84) −0.86 (1.05) −0.56 (0.84) −1.53 (1.17)f Average z score 0.15 (0.41) −0.42 (0.80)e −0.003 (0.48) −1.34 (0.54)f Note:—NA indicates not applicable; EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale.
a Adjusted P < .05 (comparison within MS groups is based on cognitive impairment status).
b Adjusted P < .05 (comparison of total sample of MS patients with healthy control).
c Adjusted P < .01 (comparison within MS groups is based on cognitive impairment status).
↵d Adjusted P < .001 (comparison of total sample of MS patients with healthy control).
↵e Adjusted P < .01 (comparison of total sample of MS patients with healthy control).
↵f Adjusted P < .001 (comparison within MS groups is based on cognitive impairment status).
- Table 2:
Values of global gray matter network properties between HC and patients with MS and within the MS sample based on cognitive statusa
Network Properties (Mean) (SD) HC MS Total Sample MS-CP MS-CI No. 18 80 55 25 Size 6950.17 (700.80) 6677.81 (589.84) 6607.64 (575.60) 6832.20 (603.02) Degree 1234.59 (129.73) 1064.42 (124.89)b 1080.08 (113.24) 1029.97 (143.86) Density (%) 17.77 (0.77) 15.97 (1.59) 16.37 (1.31) 15.10 (1.82) Clustering 0.439 (0.013) 0.396 (0.034) 0.405 (0.027) 0.377 (0.040) Betweenness 5998.11 (609.99) 5816.27 (534.55) 5741.29 (513.53) 5981.22 (553.17) Path length 1.863 (0.009) 1.871 (0.014)b 1.869 (0.012) 1.875 (0.016) γ 1.086 (0.003) 1.081 (0.005) 1.081 (0.004) 1.079 (0.006) λ 1.021 (0.003) 1.015 (0.004)b 1.016 (0.003) 1.012 (0.004)c Small world 1.064 (0.003) 1.065 (0.004) 1.064 (0.004) 1.067 (0.005) ↵a HC versus MS group was statistically compared taking into account sex, education, and global gray matter volume; and the MS-CP versus MS-CI groups were compared with 2 additional confounding factors of T1 and T2 lesion loads (log). Data are corrected for multiple comparisons.
↵b Adjusted P < .05 (comparison of total sample of MS patients with healthy control).
↵c Adjusted P < .01 (comparison within MS group based on cognitive impairment status).
Standardized Coefficients β Comparing with the Reference Modelb (G2) (P Value) β (95% CI) Significance Processing (R2 = 43.6%) 20.9 (<.0001) NAWM volume 0.298 (0.047–0.616) .0229 λ 0.548 (0.236–0.895) .0011 Learning (R2 = 40.4%) 26.1 (<.0001) Education 0.205 (0.022–0.388) .0283 T1 lesion loads (log) −0.300 (−0.581 to −0.019) .0369 λ 0.622 (0.332–0.913) <.0001 Executive functioning (R2 = 41.0%) 4.4 (.1108) Education 0.354 (0.170–0.539) .0003 NAWM volume 0.274 (0.020–0.527) .0348 Degree 0.313 (0.095–0.531) .0055 Visual (R2 = 27.5%) 9.2 (.0024) Sex (M/F) 0.293 (0.056–0.530) .0160 T2 lesion loads (log) 0.367 (0.204–0.714) .0383 Density (%) 0.523 (0.236–0.809) .0005 Language (R2 = 35.8%) 7.9 (.0953) EDSS (log) −0.376 (−0.648 to −0.104) .0074 Disease duration (log) 0.224 (0.007–0.441) .0433 NAWM volume 0.318 (0.037–0.600) .0274 Degree −0.254 (−0.486 to −0.021) .0330 Average score (R2 = 56.2%) 21.3 (<.0001) Education 0.305 (0.139–0.471) .0005 T1 lesion loads (log) −0.261 (−0.515 to −0.008) .0434 NAWM volume 0.343 (0.109–0.576) .0046 λ 0.404 (0.12–0.696) .0073 ↵a Backward stepwise elimination multivariable regression was conducted after accounting for sex, education, global gray matter volume, and T1 and T2 lesion loads (log). The Table shows the best regression model for each dependent variable (neurocognitive domain scores).
↵b Reference model included only confounding factors of sex, education, global gray matter volume, and T1 and T2 lesion loads (log). The G2 likelihood ratio test was used to compare the best regression model with the reference model. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.
