Paper detail

Multivariate white matter alterations are associated with epilepsy duration

Previous studies investigating associations between white matter alterations and duration of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) have shown differing results, and were typically limited to univariate analyses of tracts in isolation. In this study we apply a multivariate measure (the Mahalanobis distance), to capture the distinct ways white matter may differ in individual patients, and relate this to epilepsy duration. Diffusion MRI, from a cohort of 94 subjects (28 healthy controls, 33 left-TLE and 33 right-TLE), was used to assess associations between tract fractional anisotropy (FA) and epilepsy duration. Using ten white matter tracts, we analysed associations using traditional univariate analyses (z-scores) and a complementary multivariate approach (Mahalanobis distance), incorporating multiple white matter tracts into a single unified analysis. In patients with right-TLE, FA was not significantly associated with epilepsy duration for any tract studied in isolation. In patients with left-TLE, the FA of two limbic tracts (ipsilateral fornix, contralateral cingulum gyrus) was significantly negatively associated with epilepsy duration (Bonferonni corrected p<0.05). Using a multivariate approach we found significant ipsilateral positive associations with duration in both left, and right-TLE cohorts (left-TLE: Spearman&#39;s rho=0.487, right-TLE: Spearman&#39;s rho=0.422). Extrapolating our multivariate results to duration equals zero (i.e. at onset) we found no significant difference between patients and controls. Associations using the multivariate approach were more robust than univariate methods. The multivariate distance measure provides non-overlapping and more robust results than traditional univariate analyses. Future studies should consider adopting both frameworks into their analysis in order to ascertain a more complete understanding of epilepsy progression, regardless of laterality.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.