Search

While animal models of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have shown altered gamma oscillations (∼40 Hz) in local neural circuits, the low signal-to-noise ratio of gamma in the resting human brain precludes its quantification via conventional spectral estimates. Phase-amplitude coupling (PAC) indicating the dynamic integration between the gamma amplitude and the phase of low-frequency (4-12 Hz) oscillations is a useful alternative to capture local gamma activity. In addition, PAC is also an index of neuronal excitability as the phase of low-frequency oscillations that modulate gamma amplitude, effectively regulates the excitability of local neuronal firing. In this study, we sought to examine the local neuronal activity and excitability using gamma PAC, within brain regions vulnerable to early AD pathophysiology-entorhinal cortex and parahippocampus, in a clinical population of patients with AD and age-matched controls. Our clinical cohorts consisted of a well-characterized cohort of AD patients ( n = 50; age, 60 ± 8 years) with positive AD biomarkers, and age-matched, cognitively unimpaired controls ( n = 35; age, 63 ± 5.8 years). We identified the presence or the absence of epileptiform activity in AD patients (AD patients with epileptiform activity, AD-EPI+, n = 20; AD patients without epileptiform activity, AD-EPI-, n = 30) using long-term electroencephalography (LTM-EEG) and 1-hour long magnetoencephalography (MEG) with simultaneous EEG. Using the source reconstructed MEG data, we computed gamma PAC as the coupling between amplitude of the gamma frequency (30-40 Hz) with phase of the theta (4-8 Hz) and alpha (8-12 Hz) frequency oscillations, within entorhinal and parahippocampal cortices. We found that patients with AD have reduced gamma PAC in the left parahippocampal cortex, compared to age-matched controls. Furthermore, AD-EPI+ patients showed greater reductions in gamma PAC than AD-EPI- in bilateral parahippocampal cortices. In contrast, entorhinal cortices did not show gamma PAC abnormalities in patients with AD. Our findings demonstrate the spatial patterns of altered gamma oscillations indicating possible region-specific manifestations of network hyperexcitability within medial temporal lobe regions vulnerable to AD pathophysiology. Greater deficits in AD-EPI+ suggests that reduced gamma PAC is a sensitive index of network hyperexcitability in AD patients. Collectively, the current results emphasize the importance of investigating the role of neural circuit hyperexcitability in early AD pathophysiology and explore its potential as a modifiable contributor to AD pathobiology., Competing Interests: The authors of this manuscript do not have any conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this work., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)

Responsive neurostimulation is a promising treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy; however, clinical outcomes are highly variable across individuals. The therapeutic mechanism of responsive neurostimulation likely involves modulatory effects on brain networks; however, with no known biomarkers that predict clinical response, patient selection remains empiric. This study aimed to determine whether functional brain connectivity measured non-invasively prior to device implantation predicts clinical response to responsive neurostimulation therapy. Resting-state magnetoencephalography was obtained in 31 participants with subsequent responsive neurostimulation device implantation between 15 August 2014 and 1 October 2020. Functional connectivity was computed across multiple spatial scales (global, hemispheric, and lobar) using pre-implantation magnetoencephalography and normalized to maps of healthy controls. Normalized functional connectivity was investigated as a predictor of clinical response, defined as percent change in self-reported seizure frequency in the most recent year of clinic visits relative to pre-responsive neurostimulation baseline. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve quantified the performance of functional connectivity in predicting responders (≥50% reduction in seizure frequency) and non-responders (<50%). Leave-one-out cross-validation was furthermore performed to characterize model performance. The relationship between seizure frequency reduction and frequency-specific functional connectivity was further assessed as a continuous measure. Across participants, stimulation was enabled for a median duration of 52.2 (interquartile range, 27.0-62.3) months. Demographics, seizure characteristics, and responsive neurostimulation lead configurations were matched across 22 responders and 9 non-responders. Global functional connectivity in the alpha and beta bands were lower in non-responders as compared with responders (alpha, p fdr  < 0.001; beta, p fdr  < 0.001). The classification of responsive neurostimulation outcome was improved by combining feature inputs; the best model incorporated four features (i.e. mean and dispersion of alpha and beta bands) and yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.970 (0.919-1.00). The leave-one-out cross-validation analysis of this four-feature model yielded a sensitivity of 86.3%, specificity of 77.8%, positive predictive value of 90.5%, and negative predictive value of 70%. Global functional connectivity in alpha band correlated with seizure frequency reduction (alpha, P  = 0.010). Global functional connectivity predicted responder status more strongly, as compared with hemispheric predictors. Lobar functional connectivity was not a predictor. These findings suggest that non-invasive functional connectivity may be a candidate personalized biomarker that has the potential to predict responsive neurostimulation effectiveness and to identify patients most likely to benefit from responsive neurostimulation therapy. Follow-up large-cohort, prospective studies are required to validate this biomarker. These findings furthermore support an emerging view that the therapeutic mechanism of responsive neurostimulation involves network-level effects in the brain., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.)