| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Ekhtiari, Hamed, et al.
(author)
-
A methodological checklist for fMRI drug cue reactivity studies : development and expert consensus
- 2022
-
In: Nature Protocols. - : Nature Portfolio. - 1754-2189 .- 1750-2799. ; 17:3, s. 567-595
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Cue reactivity measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging is used in studies of substance-use disorders. This Consensus Statement is the result of a Delphi process to arrive at parameters that should be reported in describing these studies. Cue reactivity is one of the most frequently used paradigms in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of substance use disorders (SUDs). Although there have been promising results elucidating the neurocognitive mechanisms of SUDs and SUD treatments, the interpretability and reproducibility of these studies is limited by incomplete reporting of participants characteristics, task design, craving assessment, scanning preparation and analysis decisions in fMRI drug cue reactivity (FDCR) experiments. This hampers clinical translation, not least because systematic review and meta-analysis of published work are difficult. This consensus paper and Delphi study aims to outline the important methodological aspects of FDCR research, present structured recommendations for more comprehensive methods reporting and review the FDCR literature to assess the reporting of items that are deemed important. Forty-five FDCR scientists from around the world participated in this study. First, an initial checklist of items deemed important in FDCR studies was developed by several members of the Enhanced NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analyses (ENIGMA) Addiction working group on the basis of a systematic review. Using a modified Delphi consensus method, all experts were asked to comment on, revise or add items to the initial checklist, and then to rate the importance of each item in subsequent rounds. The reporting status of the items in the final checklist was investigated in 108 recently published FDCR studies identified through a systematic review. By the final round, 38 items reached the consensus threshold and were classified under seven major categories: Participants Characteristics, General fMRI Information, General Task Information, Cue Information, Craving Assessment Inside Scanner, Craving Assessment Outside Scanner and Pre- and Post-Scanning Considerations. The review of the 108 FDCR papers revealed significant gaps in the reporting of the items considered important by the experts. For instance, whereas items in the General fMRI Information category were reported in 90.5% of the reviewed papers, items in the Pre- and Post-Scanning Considerations category were reported by only 44.7% of reviewed FDCR studies. Considering the notable and sometimes unexpected gaps in the reporting of items deemed to be important by experts in any FDCR study, the protocols could benefit from the adoption of reporting standards. This checklist, a living document to be updated as the field and its methods advance, can help improve experimental design, reporting and the widespread understanding of the FDCR protocols. This checklist can also provide a sample for developing consensus statements for protocols in other areas of task-based fMRI.
|
|
| 8. |
- Sangchooli, Arshiya, et al.
(author)
-
Parameter Space and Potential for Biomarker Development in 25 Years of fMRI Drug Cue Reactivity
- 2024
-
In: JAMA psychiatry. - : AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. - 2168-6238 .- 2168-622X.
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Importance In the last 25 years, functional magnetic resonance imaging drug cue reactivity (FDCR) studies have characterized some core aspects in the neurobiology of drug addiction. However, no FDCR-derived biomarkers have been approved for treatment development or clinical adoption. Traversing this translational gap requires a systematic assessment of the FDCR literature evidence, its heterogeneity, and an evaluation of possible clinical uses of FDCR-derived biomarkers. Objective To summarize the state of the field of FDCR, assess their potential for biomarker development, and outline a clear process for biomarker qualification to guide future research and validation efforts. Evidence Review The PubMed and Medline databases were searched for every original FDCR investigation published from database inception until December 2022. Collected data covered study design, participant characteristics, FDCR task design, and whether each study provided evidence that might potentially help develop susceptibility, diagnostic, response, prognostic, predictive, or severity biomarkers for 1 or more addictive disorders. Findings There were 415 FDCR studies published between 1998 and 2022. Most focused on nicotine (122 [29.6%]), alcohol (120 [29.2%]), or cocaine (46 [11.1%]), and most used visual cues (354 [85.3%]). Together, these studies recruited 19 311 participants, including 13 812 individuals with past or current substance use disorders. Most studies could potentially support biomarker development, including diagnostic (143 [32.7%]), treatment response (141 [32.3%]), severity (84 [19.2%]), prognostic (30 [6.9%]), predictive (25 [5.7%]), monitoring (12 [2.7%]), and susceptibility (2 [0.5%]) biomarkers. A total of 155 interventional studies used FDCR, mostly to investigate pharmacological (67 [43.2%]) or cognitive/behavioral (51 [32.9%]) interventions; 141 studies used FDCR as a response measure, of which 125 (88.7%) reported significant interventional FDCR alterations; and 25 studies used FDCR as an intervention outcome predictor, with 24 (96%) finding significant associations between FDCR markers and treatment outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance Based on this systematic review and the proposed biomarker development framework, there is a pathway for the development and regulatory qualification of FDCR-based biomarkers of addiction and recovery. Further validation could support the use of FDCR-derived measures, potentially accelerating treatment development and improving diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive clinical judgments.
|
|
| 9. |
- Judd, N., et al.
(author)
-
Cognitive and brain development is independently influenced by socioeconomic status and polygenic scores for educational attainment
- 2020
-
In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - : Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. - 0027-8424 .- 1091-6490. ; 117:22, s. 12411-12418
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Genetic factors and socioeconomic status (SES) inequalities play a large role in educational attainment, and both have been associated with variations in brain structure and cognition. However, genetics and SES are correlated, and no prior study has assessed their neural associations independently. Here we used a polygenic score for educational attainment (EduYears-PGS), as well as SES, in a longitudinal study of 551 adolescents to tease apart genetic and environmental associations with brain development and cognition. Subjects received a structural MRI scan at ages 14 and 19. At both time points, they performed three working memory (WM) tasks. SES and EduYears-PGS were correlated (r = 0.27) and had both common and independent associations with brain structure and cognition. Specifically, lower SES was related to less total cortical surface area and lower WM. EduYears-PGS was also related to total cortical surface area, but in addition had a regional association with surface area in the right parietal lobe, a region related to nonverbal cognitive functions, including mathematics, spatial cognition, and WM. SES, but not EduYears-PGS, was related to a change in total cortical surface area from age 14 to 19. This study demonstrates a regional association of EduYears-PGS and the independent prediction of SES with cognitive function and brain development. It suggests that the SES inequalities, in particular parental education, are related to global aspects of cortical development, and exert a persistent influence on brain development during adolescence.
|
|
| 10. |
- Jia, TY, et al.
(author)
-
Epigenome-wide meta-analysis of blood DNA methylation and its association with subcortical volumes: findings from the ENIGMA Epigenetics Working Group
- 2021
-
In: Molecular psychiatry. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-5578 .- 1359-4184. ; 26:8, s. 3884-3895
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- DNA methylation, which is modulated by both genetic factors and environmental exposures, may offer a unique opportunity to discover novel biomarkers of disease-related brain phenotypes, even when measured in other tissues than brain, such as blood. A few studies of small sample sizes have revealed associations between blood DNA methylation and neuropsychopathology, however, large-scale epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) are needed to investigate the utility of DNA methylation profiling as a peripheral marker for the brain. Here, in an analysis of eleven international cohorts, totalling 3337 individuals, we report epigenome-wide meta-analyses of blood DNA methylation with volumes of the hippocampus, thalamus and nucleus accumbens (NAcc)—three subcortical regions selected for their associations with disease and heritability and volumetric variability. Analyses of individual CpGs revealed genome-wide significant associations with hippocampal volume at two loci. No significant associations were found for analyses of thalamus and nucleus accumbens volumes. Cluster-based analyses revealed additional differentially methylated regions (DMRs) associated with hippocampal volume. DNA methylation at these loci affected expression of proximal genes involved in learning and memory, stem cell maintenance and differentiation, fatty acid metabolism and type-2 diabetes. These DNA methylation marks, their interaction with genetic variants and their impact on gene expression offer new insights into the relationship between epigenetic variation and brain structure and may provide the basis for biomarker discovery in neurodegeneration and neuropsychiatric conditions.
|
|
