1. Biomarkers, designs, and interpretations of resting-state fMRI in translational pharmacological research: A review of state-of-the-Art, challenges, and opportunities for studying brain chemistry
- Author
-
Richard G. Wise, Alan C. Evans, Najmeh Khalili-Mahani, Joop M. A. van Gerven, Lino Becerra, Jean-Paul Soucy, Albert Dahan, Eugene P. Duff, Felix Carbonell, Alex P. Zijdenbos, Matthias J.P. van Osch, Lisa D. Nickerson, and Serge A.R.B. Rombouts
- Subjects
Acute effects ,Brain chemistry ,Radiological and Ultrasound Technology ,Resting state fMRI ,Pharmacological research ,Functional connectivity ,Inference ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Neurology ,Neuroimaging ,Biomarker (medicine) ,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging ,Neurology (clinical) ,Anatomy ,Psychology ,Neuroscience ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
A decade of research and development in resting‐state functional MRI (RSfMRI) has opened new translational and clinical research frontiers. This review aims to bridge between technical and clinical researchers who seek reliable neuroimaging biomarkers for studying drug interactions with the brain. About 85 pharma‐RSfMRI studies using BOLD signal (75% of all) or arterial spin labeling (ASL) were surveyed to investigate the acute effects of psychoactive drugs. Experimental designs and objectives include drug fingerprinting dose‐response evaluation, biomarker validation and calibration, and translational studies. Common biomarkers in these studies include functional connectivity, graph metrics, cerebral blood flow and the amplitude and spectrum of BOLD fluctuations. Overall, RSfMRI‐derived biomarkers seem to be sensitive to spatiotemporal dynamics of drug interactions with the brain. However, drugs cause both central and peripheral effects, thus exacerbate difficulties related to biological confounds, structured noise from motion and physiological confounds, as well as modeling and inference testing. Currently, these issues are not well explored, and heterogeneities in experimental design, data acquisition and preprocessing make comparative or meta‐analysis of existing reports impossible. A unifying collaborative framework for data‐sharing and data‐mining is thus necessary for investigating the commonalities and differences in biomarker sensitivity and specificity, and establishing guidelines. Multimodal datasets including sham‐placebo or active control sessions and repeated measurements of various psychometric, physiological, metabolic and neuroimaging phenotypes are essential for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and interpretation of the findings. We provide a list of basic minimum and advanced options that can be considered in design and analyses of future pharma‐RSfMRI studies. Hum Brain Mapp 38:2276–2325, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF