Disorder-specific cingulo-opercular network hyperconnectivity in pediatric OCD relative to pediatric anxiety

Abstract

Background Prior investigation of adult patients with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) has found greater functional connectivity within orbitofrontal–striatal–thalamic (OST) circuitry, as well as altered connectivity within and between large-scale brain networks such as the cingulo-opercular network (CON) and default mode network (DMN), relative to controls. However, as adult OCD patients often have high rates of co-morbid anxiety and long durations of illness, little is known about the functional connectivity of these networks in relation to OCD specifically, or in young patients near illness onset. Methods In this study, unmedicated female patients with OCD (ages 8–21 years, n = 23) were compared to age-matched female patients with anxiety disorders (n = 26), and healthy female youth (n = 44). Resting-state functional connectivity was used to determine the strength of functional connectivity within and between OST, CON, and DMN. Results Functional connectivity within the CON was significantly greater in the OCD group as compared to the anxiety and healthy control groups. Additionally, the OCD group displayed greater functional connectivity between OST and CON compared to the other two groups, which did not differ significantly from each other. Conclusions Our findings indicate that previously noted network connectivity differences in pediatric patients with OCD were likely not attributable to co-morbid anxiety disorders. Moreover, these results suggest that specific patterns of hyperconnectivity within CON and between CON and OST circuitry may characterize OCD relative to non-OCD anxiety disorders in youth. This study improves understanding of network dysfunction underlying pediatric OCD as compared to pediatric anxiety.

Hypoconnectivity within the cingulo‐opercular network in patients with mild cognitive impairment in Chinese communities

“…The CON was composed of pMFC sub‐regions in the dACC, pre‐SMA, and SMA, as well as the frontal operculum and anterior insula 24,25 . For the DMN, regions in the precuneus, PCC, medial frontal pole, MFG, MTL, and AG were selected 37,39 . Coordinates and corresponding Harvard‐Oxford labels are listed in Table 1 and also shown in Figure 1.…”

“…Within‐network connectivity was determined for a priori‐defined CON and DMN networks by averaging the Fisher‐z transformed correlation coefficients for all intra‐network correlations of each ROI within each network. Between‐network connectivity was computed by averaging all of the Fisher‐z transformed correlation coefficients of between‐network connections between each ROI of each of the two networks for each subject 39 …”

“…24,25 For the DMN, regions in the precuneus, PCC, medial frontal pole, MFG, MTL, and AG were selected. 37,39 Coordinates and corresponding Harvard-Oxford labels are listed in Table 1 and also shown in Figure 1.…”

“…60 Different methods of large-scale brain network definition may lead to discrepancies in the results of various studies. 39 Different studies may also use other names for networks; For example, the CON we allude to here is also known as the salience network. 61,62 Defining these networks using a consistent methodology may promote congruent findings.…”

“…Between-network connectivity was computed by averaging all of the Fisher-z transformed correlation coefficients of between-network connections between each ROI of each of the two networks for each subject. 39 YANG ET AL.…”