In this study, structural connectivity after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) was examined from a network perspective, with a particular focus on post-traumatic complaints. Fifty-three patients with and without self-reported complaints at 2 weeks after uncomplicated mTBI were included, in addition to 20 matched healthy controls. Diffusion weighted imaging was performed at 4 weeks post-injury, and neuropsychological tests measuring processing speed and verbal memory were administered at 3 months post-injury to determine cognitive outcome. Structural connectivity was investigated using whole brain tractography and subsequent graph theory analysis. In patients with mTBI, eigenvector centrality within the left temporal pole was lower than in healthy controls. In patients without complaints, global and mean local efficiency were lower than in patients with complaints, although no differences were found between either subgroup and the group of healthy controls. Neuropsychological test scores were similar for patients with mTBI and healthy controls. However, patients with complaints showed higher processing speed than patients without complaints. Within the total mTBI group, a trend was found toward a correlation between lower network clustering and higher processing speed. Additionally, significant correlations were found between higher betweenness centrality values of language areas and lower verbal memory scores in patients with mTBI. In conclusion, our findings may indicate that global graph measures of the structural connectome are associated with pre- and/or non-injury-related factors that determine the susceptibility to developing (persistent) complaints after mTBI. Further, correlations between graph measures and neuropsychological test scores could suggest early compensatory mechanisms to maintain adequate cognitive performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DischingerP.C., RybG.E., KuferaJ.A., and AumanK.M. (2009). Early predictors of postconcussive syndrome in a population of trauma patients with mild traumatic brain injury. J. Trauma, 66, 287–289.
2.
EttenhoferM.L., and BarryD.M. (2012). A comparison of long-term postconcussive symptoms between university students with and without a history of mild traumatic brain injury or orthopedic injury. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 18, 451–460.
3.
PonsfordJ., CameronP., FitzgeraldM., GrantM., and Mikocka-WalusA. (2011). Long-term outcomes after uncomplicated mild traumatic brain injury: a comparison with trauma controls. J. Neurotrauma, 28, 937–946.
4.
de KoningM.E., GarebB., el MoumniM., ScheenenM.E., van der HornH.J., TimmermanM.E., SpikmanJ.M., and van der NaaltJ. (2016). Subacute posttraumatic complaints and psychological distress in trauma patients with or without mild traumatic brain injury. Injury, 47, 2041–2047.
5.
CassidyJ.D., CancelliereC., CarrollL.J., CoteP., HincapieC.A., HolmL.W., HartvigsenJ., DonovanJ., Nygren-de BoussardC., KristmanV.L., and BorgJ. (2014). Systematic review of self-reported prognosis in adults after mild traumatic brain injury: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 95, S132–151.
6.
CarrollL.J., CassidyJ.D., PelosoP.M., BorgJ., Von HolstH., HolmL., PaniakC., and PépinM. (2004). Prognosis for mild traumatic brain injury: Results of the WHO Collaborating Centre Task Force on mild traumatic brain injury. J. Rehabil. Med. 36, 84–105.
7.
BazarianJ.J., BlythB., and CimpelloL. (2006). Bench to bedside: evidence for brain injury after concussion–looking beyond the computed tomography scan. Acad. Emerg. Med. 13, 199–214.
8.
IversonG.L., LovellM.R., SmithS., and FranzenM.D. (2000). Prevalence of abnormal CT-scans following mild head injury. Brain Inj. 14, 1057–1061.
9.
YuhE.L., MukherjeeP., LingsmaH.F., YueJ.K., FergusonA.R., GordonW.A., ValadkaA.B., SchnyerD.M., OkonkwoD.O., MaasA.I., ManleyG.T., and InvestigatorsT.-T. (2013). Magnetic resonance imaging improves 3-month outcome prediction in mild traumatic brain injury. Ann. Neurol. 73, 224–235.
10.
DoddA.B., EpsteinK., LingJ.M., and MayerA.R. (2014). Diffusion tensor imaging findings in semi-acute mild traumatic brain injury. J. Neurotrauma, 31, 1235–1248.
11.
IlvesmakiT., LuotoT.M., HakulinenU., BranderA., RyyminP., EskolaH., IversonG.L., and OhmanJ. (2014). Acute mild traumatic brain injury is not associated with white matter change on diffusion tensor imaging. Brain, 137, 1876–1882.
12.
LangeR.T., PanenkaW.J., ShewchukJ.R., HeranM.K., BrubacherJ.R., BiouxS., EckboR., ShentonM.E., and IversonG.L. (2015). Diffusion tensor imaging findings and postconcussion symptom reporting six weeks following mild traumatic brain injury. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 30, 7–25.
13.
WäljasM., IversonG., LangeR., HakulinenU., DastidarP., HuhtalaH., LiimatainenS., HartikainenK., and OhmanJ. (2014). A prospective biopsychosocial study of the persistent post-concussion symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury. J. Neurotrauma, 547, 1–54.
14.
JonesD.K., and CercignaniM. (2010). Twenty-five pitfalls in the analysis of diffusion MRI data. NMR Biomed. 23, 803–820.
15.
FilippiM., van den HeuvelM.P., FornitoA., HeY., Hulshoff PolH.E., AgostaF., ComiG., and RoccaM.A. (2013). Assessment of system dysfunction in the brain through MRI-based connectomics. Lancet.Neurol. 12, 1189–1199.
16.
SharpD.J., ScottG., and LeechR. (2014). Network dysfunction after traumatic brain injury. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 10, 156–166.
17.
SpornsO. (2013). Structure and function of complex brain networks. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 15, 247–262.
18.
RubinovM., and SpornsO. (2010). Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretations. Neuroimage, 52, 1059–1069.
19.
van den HeuvelM.P., and SpornsO. (2013). Network hubs in the human brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 683–696.
StamC.J. (2014). Modern network science of neurological disorders. Nat. Rev. 15, 683–695.
22.
CaeyenberghsK., LeemansA., De DeckerC., HeitgerM., DrijkoningenD., LindenC. V, SunaertS., and SwinnenS.P. (2012). Brain connectivity and postural control in young traumatic brain injury patients: a diffusion MRI based network analysis. NeuroImage Clin. 1, 106–115.
23.
CaeyenberghsK., LeemansA., LeunissenI., MichielsK., and SwinnenS.P. (2013). Topological correlations of structural and functional networks in patients with traumatic brain injury. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 726.
24.
CaeyenberghsK., LeemansA., LeunissenI., GooijersJ., MichielsK., SunaertS., and SwinnenS.P. (2014). Altered structural networks and executive deficits in traumatic brain injury patients. Brain Struct. Funct. 219, 193–209.
25.
FagerholmE.D., HellyerP.J., ScottG., LeechR., and SharpD.J. (2015). Disconnection of network hubs and cognitive impairment after traumatic brain injury. Brain, 138, 1696–1709.
26.
KimJ., ParkerD., WhyteJ., HartT., PlutaJ., IngalhalikarM., CoslettH.B., and VermaR. (2014). Disrupted structural connectome is associated with both psychometric and real-world neuropsychological impairment in diffuse traumatic brain injury. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 20, 887–896.
27.
MesseA., CaplainS., Pelegrini-IssacM., BlanchoS., LevyR., AghakhaniN., MontreuilM., BenaliH., and LehericyS. (2013). Specific and evolving resting-state network alterations in post-concussion syndrome following mild traumatic brain injury. PLoS One, 8, e65470.
28.
NakamuraT., HillaryF.G., and BiswalB.B. (2009). Resting network plasticity following brain injury. PLoS One, 4, e8220.
29.
YuanW., WadeS.L., and BabcockL. (2015). Structural connectivity abnormality in children with acute mild traumatic brain injury using graph theoretical analysis. Hum. Brain Mapp. 36, 779–792.
30.
Dall'AcquaP., JohannesS., MicaL., SimmenH.P., GlaabR., FandinoJ., SchwendingerM., MeierC., UlbrichE.J., MullerA., JanckeL., and HanggiJ. (2016). Connectomic and surface-based morphometric correlates of acute mild traumatic brain injury. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, 127.
31.
ZaleskyA., FornitoA., and BullmoreE.T. (2010). Network-based statistic: identifying differences in brain networks. Neuroimage, 53, 1197–1207.
32.
FornitoA., ZaleskyA., and BreakspearM. (2013). Graph analysis of the human connectome: promise, progress, and pitfalls. Neuroimage, 80, 426–444.
33.
van der HornH.J., LiemburgE.J., ScheenenM.E., de KoningM.E., MarsmanJ.B.C., SpikmanJ.M., and van der NaaltJ. (2016). Brain network dysregulation, emotion, and complaints after mild traumatic brain injury. Hum. Brain Mapp. 37, 1645–1654.
34.
VosP.E., BattistinL., BirbamerG., GerstenbrandF., Potapova, PrevecT., StepanC. a, TraubnerP., Twijnstraa, VecseiL., and von WildK. (2002). EFNS guideline on mild traumatic brain injury: report of an EFNS task force. Eur. J. Neurol. 9, 207–219.
35.
VosP.E., AlekseenkoY., BattistinL., EhlerE., GerstenbrandF., MuresanuD.F., PotapovA., StepanC.A., TraubnerP., VecseiL., von WildK., and SocietiesE.F. of N. (2012). Mild traumatic brain injury. Eur. J. Neurol. 19, 191–198.
36.
van der NaaltJ., van ZomerenA.H., SluiterW.J., and MinderhoudJ.M. (1999). One year outcome in mild to moderate head injury: the predictive value of acute injury characteristics related to complaints and return to work. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 66, 207–213.
37.
ReitanR.M., and WolfsonD. (1985). The Halstead–Reitan Neuropsycholgical Test Battery: Therapy and Clinical Interpretation. Tucson: Neuropsychological Press.
38.
HammesJ.G.W. (1971). De Stroop Kleur-Woord Test. Handleiding. Lisse (The Netherlands): Swets and Zeitlinger.
39.
WechslerD. (2001). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III, WAIS-III-NL. Amsterdam (The Netherlands): Pearson Assessment and Information B.V.
40.
ReyA. (1964). L'examen Clinique en Psychologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
41.
SchmandB., de SterkeS., and LindeboomJ. (1999). Amsterdamse Korte Termijn Geheugen test. Amsterdam: Pearson Assessment and Information B.V.
42.
SmithG.P., and BurgerG.K. (1997). Detection of malingering: validation of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law, 25, 183–189.
43.
SegonneF., DaleA.M., BusaE., GlessnerM., SalatD., HahnH.K., and FischlB. (2004). A hybrid approach to the skull stripping problem in MRI. Neuroimage, 22, 1060–1075.
44.
FischlB., SalatD.H., BusaE., AlbertM., DieterichM., HaselgroveC., van der KouweA., KillianyR., KennedyD., KlavenessS., MontilloA., MakrisN., RosenB., and DaleA.M. (2002). Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron, 33, 341–355.
45.
FischlB., SalatD.H., van der KouweA.J., MakrisN., SegonneF., QuinnB.T., and DaleA.M. (2004). Sequence-independent segmentation of magnetic resonance images. Neuroimage, 23, Suppl. 1, S69–84.
46.
SledJ.G., ZijdenbosA.P., and EvansA.C. (1998). A nonparametric method for automatic correction of intensity nonuniformity in MRI data. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 17, 87–97.
47.
FischlB., LiuA., and DaleA.M. (2001). Automated manifold surgery: constructing geometrically accurate and topologically correct models of the human cerebral cortex. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 20, 70–80.
48.
SegonneF., PachecoJ., and FischlB. (2007). Geometrically accurate topology-correction of cortical surfaces using nonseparating loops. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 26, 518–529.
49.
DaleA.M., and SerenoM.I. (1993). Improved localizadon of cortical activity by combining EEG and MEG with MRI cortical surface reconstruction: a linear approach. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 5, 162–176.
50.
DaleA.M., FischlB., and SerenoM.I. (1999). Cortical surface-based analysis. I. Segmentation and surface reconstruction. Neuroimage, 9, 179–194.
51.
FischlB., and DaleA.M. (2000). Measuring the thickness of the human cerebral cortex from magnetic resonance images. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97, 11, 050–11,055.
52.
FischlB., SerenoM.I., TootellR.B., and DaleA.M. (1999). High-resolution intersubject averaging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface. Hum. Brain Mapp. 8, 272–284.
53.
FischlB., van der KouweA., DestrieuxC., HalgrenE., SegonneF., SalatD.H., BusaE., SeidmanL.J., GoldsteinJ., KennedyD., CavinessV., MakrisN., RosenB., and DaleA.M. (2004). Automatically parcellating the human cerebral cortex. Cereb. Cortex, 14, 11–22.
54.
DesikanR.S., SegonneF., FischlB., QuinnB.T., DickersonB.C., BlackerD., BucknerR.L., DaleA.M., MaguireR.P., HymanB.T., AlbertM.S., and KillianyR.J. (2006). An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. Neuroimage, 31, 968–980.
55.
LeemansA., JeurissenB., SijbersJ., and JonesD.(2009). ExploreDTI: a graphical toolbox for processing, analyzing, and visualizing diffusion MR data., in: 17th Annual Meeting of Intl Soc Mag Reson Med. April 18–24, 2009. Honolulu, Hawaii. pp. 3537.
56.
LeemansA., and JonesD.K. (2009). The B-matrix must be rotated when correcting for subject motion in DTI data. Magn. Reson. Med. 61, 1336–1349.
57.
IrfanogluM.O., WalkerL., SarllsJ., MarencoS., and PierpaoliC. (2012). Effects of image distortions originating from susceptibility variations and concomitant fields on diffusion MRI tractography results. Neuroimage, 61, 275–288.
58.
TournierJ.D., CalamanteF., and ConnellyA. (2007). Robust determination of the fibre orientation distribution in diffusion MRI: non-negativity constrained super-resolved spherical deconvolution. Neuroimage, 35, 1459–1472.
59.
JeurissenB., LeemansA., JonesD.K., TournierJ.D., and SijbersJ. (2011). Probabilistic fiber tracking using the residual bootstrap with constrained spherical deconvolution. Hum. Brain Mapp. 32, 461–479.
60.
TaxC.M., JeurissenB., VosS.B., ViergeverM.A., and LeemansA. (2014). Recursive calibration of the fiber response function for spherical deconvolution of diffusion MRI data. Neuroimage, 86, 67–80.
61.
GongG., Rosa-NetoP., CarbonellF., ChenZ.J., HeY., and EvansA.C. (2009). Age- and gender-related differences in the cortical anatomical network. J. Neurosci. 29, 15, 684–15,693.
62.
van WijkB.C., StamC.J., and DaffertshoferA. (2010). Comparing brain networks of different size and connectivity density using graph theory. PLoS One, 5, e13701.
63.
BenjaminiY., and HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 57, 289–300.
64.
McgrawK.O, and WongS.P. (1992). A common language effect size statistic. Psychol. Bull. 111, 361–365.
65.
BiglerE.D. (2007). Anterior and middle cranial fossa in traumatic brain injury: relevant neuroanatomy and neuropathology in the study of neuropsychological outcome. Neuropsychology, 21, 515–531.
66.
LenrootR.K., and GieddJ.N. (2006). Brain development in children and adolescents: insights from anatomical magnetic resonance imaging. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30, 718–729.
67.
ServaasM.N., GeerligsL., RenkenR.J., MarsmanJ.B., OrmelJ., RieseH., and AlemanA. (2015). Connectomics and neuroticism: an altered functional network organization. Neuropsychopharmacology, 40, 296–304.
68.
CarrollL.J., CassidyJ.D., CancelliereC., CoteP., HincapieC.A., KristmanV.L., HolmL.W., BorgJ., Nygren-de BoussardC., and HartvigsenJ. (2014). Systematic review of the prognosis after mild traumatic brain injury in adults: cognitive, psychiatric, and mortality outcomes: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 95, S152–173.
69.
RohlingM.L., BinderL.M., DemakisG.J., LarrabeeG.J., PloetzD.M., and Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ. (2011). A meta-analysis of neuropsychological outcome after mild traumatic brain injury: re-analyses and reconsiderations of Binder et al. (1997), Frencham et al. (2005), and Pertab et al. (2009). Clin. Neuropsychol. 25, 608–623.
70.
JohanssonB., BerglundP., and RonnbackL. (2009). Mental fatigue and impaired information processing after mild and moderate traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 23, 1027–1040.
71.
LiuK., LiB., QianS., JiangQ., LiL., WangW., ZhangG., SunY., and SunG. (2016). Mental fatigue after mild traumatic brain injury: a 3D-ASL perfusion study. Brain Imaging Behav. 10, 857–868.
72.
McAllisterT.W., SaykinA.J., FlashmanL.A., SparlingM.B., JohnsonS.C., GuerinS.J., MamourianA.C., WeaverJ.B., and YanofskyN. (1999). Brain activation during working memory 1 month after mild traumatic brain injury: a functional MRI study. Neurology, 53, 1300–1308.
73.
McAllisterT.W., SparlingM.B., FlashmanL.A., GuerinS.J., MamourianA.C., and SaykinA.J. (2001). Differential working memory load effects after mild traumatic brain injury. Neuroimage, 14, 1004–1012.
74.
BuchsbaumB.R., and D'EspositoM. (2008). The search for the phonological store: from loop to convolution. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 20, 762–778.
75.
JonesD.K. (2010). Challenges and limitations of quantifying brain connectivity in vivo with diffusion MRI. Imaging Med. 2, 341–355.
76.
JonesD.K., KnoscheT.R., and TurnerR. (2013). White matter integrity, fiber count, and other fallacies: the do's and don'ts of diffusion MRI. Neuroimage, 73, 239–254.
77.
BassettD.S., BrownJ.A., DeshpandeV., CarlsonJ.M., and GraftonS.T. (2011). Conserved and variable architecture of human white matter connectivity. Neuroimage, 54, 1262–1279.
78.
Duarte-CarvajalinoJ.M., JahanshadN., LengletC., McMahonK.L., de ZubicarayG.I., MartinN.G., WrightM.J., ThompsonP.M., and SapiroG. (2012). Hierarchical topological network analysis of anatomical human brain connectivity and differences related to sex and kinship. Neuroimage, 59, 3784–3804.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
