4.7 Article

Chronic post-stroke aphasia severity is determined by fragmentation of residual white matter networks

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-07607-9

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) [DC014021, DC011739, DC014664]
  2. American Heart Association [SFDRN26030003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many stroke survivors with aphasia in the acute period experience spontaneous recovery within the first six months after the stroke. However, approximately 30-40% sustain permanent aphasia and the factors determining incomplete recovery are unclear. Suboptimal recovery may be influenced by disruption of areas seemingly spared by the stroke due to loss of white matter connectivity and network integrity. We reconstructed individual anatomical whole-brain connectomes from 90 left hemisphere stroke survivors using diffusion MR images. We measured the modularity of the residual white matter network organization, the probability of brain regions clustering together, and the degree of fragmentation of left hemisphere networks. Greater post-stroke left hemisphere network fragmentation and higher modularity index were associated with more severe chronic aphasia, controlling for the size of the stroke lesion. Even when the left hemisphere was relatively spared, subjects with disorganized community structure had significantly worse aphasia, particularly when key temporal lobe regions were isolated into segregated modules. These results suggest that white matter integrity and disorganization of neuronal networks could be important determinants of chronic aphasia severity. Connectome white matter organization measured through modularity and other topological features could be used as a personalized variable for clinical staging and aphasia treatment planning.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available