Disrupted functional connectivity of the brain reward system in substance use problems: a meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Importance Extensive literature suggests that the brain reward system is crucial in understanding the neurobiology of substance use disorders. However, across studies on substance use problems, evidence of reliable disruptions in functional connectivity is limited. Objective To uncover deficient functional connectivity with the brain reward system that are reliably associated with substance use problems, by meta-analytically synthesizing results of functional brain connectivity studies on substance use problems. Data Sources Identification of relevant functional brain connectivity studies on substance misuse was done using PubMed, Google Scholar and EMBASE (until September 2021) with the following terms: cannabis, cocaine, substance, methamphetamine, amphetamine, alcohol, tobacco, nicotine, functional connectivity, resting-state, task-based connectivity, psychophysiological interaction. Study Selection Guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses were followed, Publications were included if they reported stereotactic coordinates of functional brain connectivity results on individuals with substance use problems without a comorbid major mental illness or organic impairment. Data Extraction and Synthesis Spatially convergent brain regions across functional connectivity studies on subjects with substance use problems were analyzed using Activation Likelihood Estimation meta-analysis. Altered connectivity with regions of the brain reward system was performed carried out through voxelwise seed-based meta-analyses. Subanalyses were performed to examine mediating factors such as severity of illness, connectivity modalities and types of substances. Main Outcomes and Measures Identification of deficits in functional brain connectivity with the reward system across studies on substance use problems. Results Ninety-six studies using a seed-based connectivity approach were included, representing 5757 subjects with substance use problems. In subjects with substance use problems, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex exhibited hyperconnectivity with the ventral striatum, and hypoconnectivity with the amygdala and hippocampus. Executive striatum showed hyperconnectivity with motor thalamus and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and hypoconnectivity with anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula. Finally, the limbic striatum was found to be hyperconnected to the orbitofrontal cortex, and hypoconnected to the precuneus, compared to healthy subjects. Conclusions and Relevance The current study provided meta-analytical evidence of deficient functional connectivity between brain regions of the reward system and cortico-striato-thalamocortical loops in addiction, in line with current influential neurobiological models. These results are consistent with deficits in motivation and habit formation occurring in addiction, and they also highlight alterations in brain regions involved in socio-emotional processing and attention salience. KEY POINTS Question What functional brain connectivities with the brain reward system are reliably disrupted across studies on substance use problems? Findings Subjects with substance use problems exhibited deficient connectivity between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and subcortical structures including the ventral striatum, amygdala, and hippocampus. Executive striatum showed hyperconnectivity with motor thalamus and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and hypoconnectivity with anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula. Altered connectivity between limbic striatum and core regions of the default mode network was also observed. Meaning Deficient functional brain connectivity along the cortico-striato-thalamocortical loops may reflect deficits in habit formation, socio-emotional and salience processing in addiction.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,038 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».