Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Apr 30;15(4):e0232475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232475

A systematic review of neurological impairments in myalgic encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome using neuroimaging techniques

Rebekah Maksoud 1,2,*, Stanley du Preez 1,2,3,4, Natalie Eaton-Fitch 1,2,3, Kiran Thapaliya 1,2, Leighton Barnden 1,2, Hélène Cabanas 1,2, Donald Staines 1,2, Sonya Marshall-Gradisnik 1,2
Editor: Marcello Moccia5
PMCID: PMC7192498  PMID: 32353033

Abstract

Background

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/ Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a multi-system illness characterised by a diverse range of debilitating symptoms including autonomic and cognitive dysfunction. The pathomechanism remains elusive, however, neurological and cognitive aberrations are consistently described. This systematic review is the first to collect and appraise the literature related to the structural and functional neurological changes in ME/CFS patients as measured by neuroimaging techniques and to investigate how these changes may influence onset, symptom presentation and severity of the illness.

Methods

A systematic search of databases Pubmed, Embase, MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost) and Web of Science (via Clarivate Analytics) was performed for articles dating between December 1994 and August 2019. Included publications report on neurological differences in ME/CFS patients compared with healthy controls identified using neuroimaging techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography and electroencephalography. Article selection was further refined based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. A quality assessment of included publications was completed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist.

Results

A total of 55 studies were included in this review. All papers assessed neurological or cognitive differences in adult ME/CFS patients compared with healthy controls using neuroimaging techniques. The outcomes from the articles include changes in gray and white matter volumes, cerebral blood flow, brain structure, sleep, EEG activity, functional connectivity and cognitive function. Secondary measures including symptom severity were also reported in most studies.

Conclusions

The results suggest widespread disruption of the autonomic nervous system network including morphological changes, white matter abnormalities and aberrations in functional connectivity. However, these findings are not consistent across studies and the origins of these anomalies remain unknown. Future studies are required confirm the potential neurological contribution to the pathology of ME/CFS.

Background

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/ Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a complex spectrum disorder that affects 0.2–2.6% of the global population [1,2]. ME/CFS patients present with an array of symptoms including cognitive, autonomic and neuroimmune disturbances, endocrine dysfunction, in addition to impaired cellular energy metabolism and ion transport [3]. The aetiology and pathomechanism underlying ME/CFS remains elusive [4]. Moreover, there are no accepted targeted treatment regimens or diagnostic tests available [5]. Diagnosis is instead achieved through the application of symptom-specific case criteria when all other explanatory clinical causes have been excluded [68].

There are three criteria widely used to define ME/CFS patients: Fukuda (1994), Canadian Consensus Criteria (2003) (CCC) and the International Consensus Criteria (2011) (ICC) [68]. The Fukuda criteria, published by the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) places emphasis on persistent fatigue that is unrelieved by rest in combination with at least four out of a potential eight additional symptoms, including but not limited to joint pain, throat soreness and impaired memory function [6]. The CCC and ICC built upon the Fukuda criteria and included important hallmark symptoms including post-exertional malaise, immunological and neurological symptoms that were not accounted for in the original Fukuda definition [7,8]. Although there is no consensus on the pathomechanism of ME/CFS, it has been classified as a neurological disease by the World Health Organization since 1969 as autonomic and cognitive dysfunction are key underlying features of this illness [9].

The nervous system is a tightly integrated network of nerves and specialised neuronal cells that orchestrates many critical physiological functions including motor, sensory and cognitive processing [10]. Evidence of disruption to this network is a consistent feature of ME/CFS that has been assessed through various neuroimaging techniques [1148]. Neuroimaging studies involving the use of tools including but not limited to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) and electroencephalography (EEG) have enabled advancements in the detection of structural and functional abnormalities in ME/CFS and other neurological diseases.

The primary aim of this systematic review was to collect and appraise the literature related to the structural and functional neurological changes in ME/CFS patients as measured by imaging techniques. Secondary to this, how neurological changes may influence onset, symptom presentation and severity of the illness was also investigated. Cognitive impairment, sleep and energy wave impairments, functional connectivity (FC), gray and white matter (WM) changes and cerebral blood flow in adult ME/CFS patients compared with healthy controls (HCs) form the major focal points of this review. This research serves as a platform to evaluate the usefulness of these imaging processes in characterising ME/CFS that may translate into a potential future diagnostic tool and targets for pharmacotherapeutic intervention.

Literature search

This review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Fig 1). Relevant literature was retrieved through databases Pubmed, Embase, MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost) and Web of Science (via Clarivate Analytics). A systematic search on these databases of full- text and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms “Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue” along with “Functional Neuroimaging” or “Diagnostic Imaging” or “Tomography, X-Ray Computed” or “Magnetic Resonance Imaging” or “Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy” or “Magnetoencephalography” or “Positron-Emission Tomography” or “Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon” or “Electroencephalography” (S1 File) was performed between December 1994 and August 2019. Search terms were combined using Boolean operators ‘OR’ to expand the search for all expressions of cases and ‘AND’ to specify cases containing Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue in conjunction with the listed neuroimaging terms. Two literature searches were completed for this systematic review on separate occasions by two authors using the same search method. The primary search was conducted on the 19th of August 2019 by RM and the 2nd search was conducted on the 12th of September 2019 by SDP using the same methodological approach. Reference list checking and citation searching was completed, and no additional papers were selected. Searching for unpublished literature was not performed. No additional papers were identified in the final search or through alternative databases such as Griffith University institute library or Google Scholar.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram of literature search for included studies in this review of neuroimaging and ME/CFS.

Fig 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies that contained two or more key search terms in the abstract or title and adhered to the following inclusion criteria were selected for review: (i) published in 1994 or later; (ii) conducted in human adults aged 18 years or over; (iii) written in English and available as full text; (iv) were journal articles reporting on original research; (v) diagnosis of ME/CFS used the following case criteria: Fukuda (1994), CCC (2003), ICC (2011) or the Institute of Medicine (IOM) diagnostic criteria (2015); (vi) all studies investigated neurological changes in ME/CFS patients using neuroimaging techniques compared to HCs.

Articles were excluded from this review if they did not include at least two key search terms in the abstract or title or if they adhered to any of the following exclusion criteria: (i) written prior to the establishment of the Fukuda definition in 1994; (ii) conducted in human participants that were under 18; (iii) not written in English or not available as full text; (iv) were studies reporting on non-original data including: duplicate studies, case reports or review articles; (v) use of alternative case criteria than those aforementioned; (vi) studies were not relevant to the scope of this review. Publications were also excluded if the ME/CFS cohort was compared with another patient group (e.g., fibromyalgia, or depression or chronic fatigue etc.) and not compared with HC. All interventional studies were excluded.

Selection of studies

The open-source reference management tool Zotero was used to screen, sort and store the retrieved articles from all databases. Screening involved reviewing and selecting articles based on eligibility and exclusion criteria. Publications were selected independently by two different authors using the same protocol to ensure the validity of the search. After selection of all papers included in this review, the relevance of these papers was reassessed by other co-authors.

Data extraction

Following the selection of papers relevant data was extracted including (i) study design; (ii) diagnostic criteria used; (iii) sample size; (iv) method of analysis/ neuroimaging technique used.

Quality assessment

All publications included in this systematic review were evaluated for quality and bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist (S2 File). Quality assessment was completed by two authors (RM and SDP) on separate occasions. Each checklist item assesses the following: (1) group matching, (2) source population, (3) criteria, (4) method of exposure, (5) assessment of exposure, (6) identification of confounding variables, (7) management of confounding variables, (8) measurement of outcomes, (9) exposure period selection, (10) statistical analysis. Items 4, 5 and 9 were excluded in selected papers as these items are specific for intervention studies.

Results

Across all databases, Pubmed (184), Embase (578), MEDLINE (250) and Web of Science (343), a total of 1355 papers were identified using the selected search terms. Following removal of all duplicates and application of all exclusion and inclusion criteria the total number of articles was refined to 55. The selection process as conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines has been outlined in Fig 1. All papers assessed neurological differences in adult ME/CFS patients compared to HCs using neuroimaging techniques.

Participant and study characteristics

Participant and study characteristics are presented in (S3 and S4 Files). Out of the 55 articles included in this review, 52 were observational case-control studies [1118,4951] and three (6.25%) were observational twin studies. The mean number of ME/CFS patients and HCs included across all studies were 22.9 and 19.3 respectively. Females made up the largest proportion of participants. There were only 10 studies which reported race, where majority of the participants were Caucasian [12,19,21,26,27,37,41,47,48,52]. Mean age across all studies was 40.9 years for ME/CFS patients and 39.07 years for HCs. Only 16 out of 55 papers reported a value for body mass index (BMI) or weight [11,12,1719,35,37,38,41,43,5355]. In all twin studies, levels of zygosity were assessed and ascertained at 99.9% [12,21,27]. 47 of the 55 identified papers included participants that fulfilled the requirements of being diagnosed with the Fukuda criteria [12,14,1619,2128,30,31,3441,4361]. Three of the papers used the more stringent CCC criteria to classify ME/CFS patients [15,29,42]. The remaining five research papers used either of the two aforementioned criteria [11,13,20,33,62]. No papers utilised the IOM diagnostic criteria. For ME/CFS patients, mean illness duration was 9.68 years.

There were four different neuroimaging techniques used to assess neural changes in ME/CFS compared with HCs. Out of the 55 studies: 16 studies utilised MRI [11,1315,20,3136,43,53,58,62,63], 17 used functional MRI (fMRI) [16,18,2124,26,34,4043,45,49,4951], five used PET scans [17,25,28,30,44] and 11 used EEG [12,27,29,38,39,4648,54,55]. The remaining studies used magnetic resonance spectrometry (MRS) [19,52,59,60,64,65]. The articles reported on multiple outcomes including brain structure, cerebral blood flow (CBF), gray and WM volumes, sleep and EEG, and FC. Key findings of each of the included studies have been described in (S5 File).

Literature reporting changes in cerebral blood flow

Of the included studies, six investigated changes in cerebral blood flow (CBF) in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [20,21,49,51,62]. Two of the studies reported significantly lower CBF in ME/CFS patients compared with HC [19,62]. A study that utilised arterial spin labelling (ASL) saw less regional (rCBF) in the left cingulate cortex and right lingual gyrus in ME/CFS patients [19]. This study also reported higher ventricular lactate in ME/CFS patients correlated with several measures of physical health and disability using MRS [19]. Another ASL MRI study saw a significantly less global CBF in nine of the 11 patients studied, however the remaining two ME/CFS patients showed greater CBF relative to HCs which did not reach significance [49]. Another study showed that there were significantly higher CBF levels when provided with a Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) cognitive task, this then decreased after three minutes. ME/CFS patients had significantly lower rCBF in superior temporal gyri (STG), precuneus and fusiform gyrus during recovery compared to HCs [20]. A single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) twin study found that there were no significant differences in rCBF values between a healthy twin and a twin discordant for ME/CFS [21]. In an ASL study no group differences were found in CBF or heart rate variability (HRV), however, there was an inverse correlation between CBF, HRV and fatigue symptoms [51].

An ASL study investigated orthostatic intolerance (OI) in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs. Severity of OI symptoms was associated with lower intracranial compliance (change in volume per unit change in pressure), and higher intracranial perfusion. There were no significant differences in intracranial compliance or perfusion between ME/CFS patients and HCs [53].

Literature reporting changes in brain structure and function

One of the most frequently reported structural or functional differences occurred in the cingulate region. This feature was described in 15 studies [18,19,2230,44,50,57,62]. A PET study reported a 199% greater binding potential of 1C-R-PK11195, which shows neuroinflammation, in the cingulate region of ME/CFS patients compared with HCs. There was also a significantly greater binding potential in the hippocampus, amygdala, thalamus, midbrain and pons of patients compared with HC. For the cingulate region and the thalamus, this difference positively correlated with pain scores while the binding potential in the hippocampus correlated with the depression score [25]. Another PET study found that there was significantly less [11C] (+) MCN5652, a radiotracer used to detect serotonin transporters (5-HTT), in the anterior cingulate of ME/CFS patients indicating a smaller density of 5-HTT [28]. There were also reports of higher FC between the posterior cingulate cortex and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex in female ME/CFS patients that had strong positive association with the Chalder Fatigue Scale score [24]. This finding was corroborated by two other studies, one using the same method and another using ASL [16,62]. When fatigue was induced in ME/CFS patients, a BOLD fMRI study found a significantly higher activation of the posterior cingulate gyrus, occipito-parietal cortex and para-hippocampal gyrus in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs, while dorsolateral and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex activation were lower. In a fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET study 12 patients showed bilateral hypometabolism of glucose in the cingulate gyrus and adjacent mesial cortical areas compared to HCs while two patients showed hypometabolism in the cuneus/ precuneus [44]. In ME/CFS patients, a significantly higher perfusion of the anterior cingulate region and less perfusion elsewhere was exhibited in an investigation using SPECT [26].

Disruption of hippocampus function was described in six studies [16,22,25,27,50,58]. Significant differences in current source density was found in the parahippocampal gyrus in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [27]; this includes higher EEG delta power. Significantly reduced FC was also reported in the left parahippocampal gyrus of ME/CFS patients [16]. When dynamic FC (dFC) was assessed it was also found that it was reduced between the hippocampus and right superior parietal lobe in ME/CFS patients and this correlated with task-related fatigue [50]. BOLD fMRI studies found that para-hippocampal gyrus activation was higher in patient groups during a fatigue inducing task [23]. Significantly reduced serotonin receptors were detected using PET in the hippocampus of ME/CFS patients compared with HC [17]. The ligand 1C-(R)-PK11195 was increased in the hippocampus of ME/CFS patients signifying increased neuroinflammation and this correlated with depression scores [25]. Significantly lower gray matter volume (GMV) was also detected in the posterior division of the left parahippocampal gyrus in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [58].

T1 weighted spin echo (T1wSE) and T2 weighted spin echo (T2wSE) studies found significant increases in T1wSE, which responds to myelin levels in WM, in prefrontal WM (13) and sensorimotor WM [15]. One of these studies also reported significant abnormal autonomic correlations in the brainstem vasomotor centre, midbrain reticular formation and hypothalamus which were interpreted to result from impaired connections between them [14]. The other study showed a strong link between brainstem GMV and pulse pressure in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [11].

While performing the valsalva maneuver ME/CFS patients that test positive or negative for a temporomandibular disorder (TMD) and HCs all show activation of the superior and inferior frontal gyri, the left and right putamen and thalamus, and the insular cortex. Compared with those who screened negative for the TMDs and HCs, ME/CFS patients that have an accompanying TMD showed greater activity in the left insular cortex and left caudate nucleus [61].

There were eight papers in total that discussed GMV in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [15,3235,42,57,58]. A reduction in GMV was described in four articles [32,33,57,58]. A voxel-based morphometric (VBM) study reported a significant decrease in GMV within the bilateral prefrontal cortex in ME/CFS patients that correlated with pain severity [32]. Another study using the same method also showed a significant decrease in GMV in regions including the occipital lobes, right angular gyrus and the posterior division of the left parahippocampal gyrus in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [58]. Two other studies linked the reduction of GMV in ME/CFS patients to a decrease in physical activity ability using VBM [36] and reduced GMV in the contralateral regions to ME/CFS symptom scores using longitudinal MRI [33]. The remaining two studies found no regional or global differences in GMV [35,42].

Nine papers mentioned significant WM changes in ME/CFS patients compared to HCs [11,14,15,31,33,34,42,58]. Four of the articles described a decrease in WM volume (WMV). A T1w and T2w MRI study found that WMV is decreased in the mid-brain of ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [11]. This finding was also consistent in two other studies using the same method [13,42], one which correlated this decrease with prolonged fatigue duration [13,42]. Another study that used phase-contrast, quantitative flow MRI reported significantly lower WMV in the pons and right temporal lobe in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [34]. ME/CFS patients were also found to have significantly decreased WMV in the occipital lobes, the left inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus and adjacent areas [33,58]. Evidence of bilateral WM atrophy in ME/CFS patients has been reported and this was accompanied by an increase in cortical thickness in both arcuate end points, the middle temporal and precentral gyri, and the occipital lobe [31].

Literature reporting changes in brain metabolites

Six studies investigated changes in brain metabolites this includes: N-acetylaspartate, choline and creatine [19,52,59,60,64,65]. Two studies reported an increase of choline- containing compounds respective to creatine or unsuppressed water peaks [59,60]. One study found that higher temperatures in the right insula, putamen, frontal cortex, thalamus and cerebellum were associated with elevated lactate/ creatine ratios [65]

Ventricular lactate levels were assessed in three studies [19,52,64]. All studies reported significantly greater levels of ventricular lactate in ME/CFS patients compared to HCs [19,52,64]. One study associated this difference in ventricular lactate to an increase mental fatigue [52]. Another study reported a negative correlation between ventricular lactate levels and physical health and disability scores [19].

Literature reporting changes in sleep quality

Sleep was investigated in three of the 48 studies. One of the studies found that ME/CFS patients had significantly reduced EEG alpha power, theta, sigma and beta spectral power during stage 2, slow wave sleep and rapid eye movement (REM) while delta power was reduced during slow wave sleep and then elevated during stage 1 and REM when compared to HCs [37]. Another study found that ME/CFS patients had lower occipital and central ultra-slow (US) delta power and higher occipital theta and alpha power compared with HCs. ME/CFS patients were also found to have significantly impaired subjective sleep quality compared with HCs [55]. A twin study found that there were no significant polysomnographic differences in REM latency, delta, fast frequency beta or alpha power between the ME/CFS twin and healthy twin [12].

An MRI study investigated structural differences that were associated with unrefreshing sleep in patient groups compared to HCs. Using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), sleep quality of ME/CFS patients was significantly correlated with MRI signal intensities in the medial prefrontal cortex [42].

Literature reporting changes in electrical activity

Nine articles discussed significant changes in energy waves using EEG [12,27,29,37,38,4648,55]. These articles include the three previously mentioned papers that discussed EEG electrical activity in relation to sleep [12,37,55]. In addition to this, one article reported that increased ultra-slow (US) delta waves was approximately one fifth lower in ME/CFS groups compared with HCs. Theta, alpha, sigma and beta waves did not significantly differ between groups [38]. A twin study that used EEG Low-resolution electromagnetic tomography analysis (LORETA) found that there was significantly higher delta power in the left uncus and parahippocampal gyrus and higher theta power in the cingulate cortex and right superior frontal gyrus in the ME/CFS monozygotic twin compared with the healthy twin [27]. A study using the same method of analysis, LORETA also found hypoconnectivity in the delta, alpha and alpha-2 bands in patient groups compared to their respective HCs [29]. In another investigation small worldness, defined by the level of integration and clustering of neural networks, in the delta band was found to be significantly lower in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [47]. Furthermore, one study detected lower beta 2 level current density in the somatomotor cortex, superior parietal lobe and medially in the precuneus and posterior cingulate of ME/CFS patients during a resting condition quantitative EEG (qEEG). The same study also found greater current density of delta frequency bands in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [48]. A brain electrical mapping (BEAM) EEG study found that there were significantly elevated levels of delta, theta and alpha 1 waves in the right frontal and left occipital regions [46]. When requested to complete word finding and dot localisation cognitive tasks, significant differences in EEG source activity in the left frontal-temporal- parietal regions in ME/CFS patients were compared with HCs. Patients were able to be successfully characterised at 83% by alpha band data when completing a cognitive task [39].

Literature reporting changes in functional connectivity

Seven studies investigated changes in FC in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs [16,24,29,47,50,62]. In an ASL study, patients showed significant differences in FC relative to HCs. These differences include higher FC between regions including the bilateral superior frontal gyrus, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), precuneus, and right angular gyrus to right postcentral gyrus, supplementary motor area, posterior cingulate gyrus and thalamus [16]. These differences strongly correlated with overall clinical fatigue. An ASL fMRI study showed both differences in static FC (sFC) and dynamic FC (dFC) [50]. This finding also linked disrupted FC with fatigue scores and has been corroborated by two other articles included in this review [24,62]. Another study using eLORETA EEG found hypoconnectivity in the delta, alpha and alpha-2 frequency bands in patient groups compared with HCs. Resting state connectivity deficits were also described in the occipital, parietal, posterior temporal and posterior cingulate in the ME/CFS cohort. A positive correlation between cognitive impairment and disrupted connectivity in the central executive network (CEN), salience network (SN) and default mode network (DMN) was also described in ME/CFS patients [29]. Another study using the same technique, found that there was significantly lower delta small-worldness in ME/CFS patients which was negatively correlated with neurocognitive impairment scores [47]. To support this, at resting state FC between the medial prefrontal cortex and inferior parietal lobules were weaker in the ME/CFS cohort, however, when performing a stroop task the FC was found to be significantly more complex [63].

Literature reporting changes in cognitive function

There were 14 studies that reported on significant neurological findings in association with cognitive function in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs. A SPECT study reported that ME/CFS patient performance on the PASAT task was equivalent to HCs, however, activation of the anterior cingulate was much greater during the task [26]. In another study, when provided with a fatiguing task, there was no significant difference in responsiveness in task dependent regions in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs, however, patients had reduced response in the auditory cortices while controls had a constant response [45]. Using ASL reported higher fatigue levels in both ME/CFS patients and HCs using PASAT which was accompanied by increased CBF which then progressively decreased after three minutes. During recovery, when compared with HCs, ME/CFS patients exhibited a significant decrease in rCBF in the superior temporal gyri (STG), precuneus and fusiform gyrus [20]. Another study reported a significant increase in the activation of occipito-parietal cortex, posterior cingulate gyrus and para-hippocampal gyrus in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs following being subjected to a fatigue inducing task [23]. This same investigation reported a significant decrease in activation of dorsolateral and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex in ME/CFS patients relative to HCs. These findings were reversed in an anxiety-provoking situation [23]. A fMRI study using n-back tasks to measure working memory function found that the memory networks were activated, and performance levels were high in both ME/CFS patients and HCs. ME/CFS patients, however, had significantly reduced activation in the dorsolateral, prefrontal and parietal cortices and increased activation in the medial prefrontal regions including the anterior cingulate compared with HCs during 1-back condition. During the 2- and 3- back conditions ME/CFS patients also had significantly stronger large clusters in the right inferior/ medial temporal cortex. This activation was dependent on task load [22]. A BOLD study found that ME/CFS patients had more extensive use of the working system network when provided with an audio processing task [40]. A later study saw that there were no differences in mental fatigue and brain activity in simple auditory monitoring tasks in both groups, however, there were marked differences in these in the cerebellar, temporal, cingulate and frontal regions in ME/CFS patients when requested to complete a working memory task [18]. This difference was evident following the control of baseline fatigue levels. Using the same technique, it was found that ME/CFS patients recruit a wider region of cortical and subcortical regions and had significantly lower SampEns characteristic of lower information capacity.

One EEG P300 study found that there was lower performance by ME/CFS patients in digit symbol and finger tapping task (FTT) compared with HCs [54]. There was no significant difference in performance in auditory verbal learning test (AVLT) nor digit span tasks.

In a rapid event-related fMRI, while similar neural networks were activated including the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex in both groups, the ventral anterior cingulate cortex was active in error trials in HCs, however, this was not activated in ME/CFS patients. Performance in ME/CFS patients was also significantly slower compared with HCs [57]. A BOLD fMRI study found that there was increased complexity in the posterior cingulate cortex in the default mode network in both resting state and during a stroop task. FC between the medial prefrontal cortex and inferior parietal lobules were significantly weaker in the resting state and more complex in the ME/CFS group during the task.

An fMRI study reported a significant decrease in activation of the right caudate and right globus pallidus in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs when subjects performed a gambling task. This correlated with an increase in mental fatigue, general fatigue and reduced activity [41].

When requested to perform a physical effort task, ME/CFS patients were found to have a reduced feedback related activity in the dorsolateral, prefrontal cortex proportional to state-related fatigue and prior beliefs about task performance ability compared to HCs.

Literature reporting changes in secondary outcomes

Secondary outcomes were investigated in 43 out of 55 studies [11,13,14,1633,35,36,38,4148,50,51,54,57,58,62]. Secondary outcomes are presented in (S6 File). These outcomes included: quality of life (QoL), sleep, pain and fatigue scores. These were measured using a variety of different tools including Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), bell score, 36-Item short form survey (SF-36), multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI), clinical interview schedule- revised (CIS-R) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Almost all studies found depression, anxiety, pain and fatigue scores were significantly higher in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs while physical function was higher in HCs. Cognitive impairment and mental fatigue were also measured and found to be greater in ME/CFS patients compared with their respective HCs in all cases where assessed.

Quality assessment

To assess each article’s quality and bias the JBI checklist was used (S7 File). The most commonly addressed item was item eight where 55 (100%) of the studies’ outcomes were assessed in a standard, valid and reliable way [1151,5358,62]. Item six and seven followed where 49 (89.1%) of the studies were able to effectively identify confounding factors and mitigate them [1145,47,48,50,51,5355,57]. This was either achieved through inclusion or exclusion criteria, restrictions to certain classes of medications, caffeine or alcohol, and statistical adjustments. 48 (87.3%) studies addressed item one where they utilised methods to appropriately match ME/CFS patients and HCs [1114,1627,29,31,3446,48,50,51,5358,62]. This was most commonly achieved through age and sex-matching as well as weight and handedness- matching. Item two was the least addressed checklist item by all included studies with only 20 out of 55 studies (36.4%) reporting source population information [12,18,2124,26,27,29,30,32,34,37,41,4547,53,62]. All twin studies were able to effectively adhere to this item through the condition that twins needed to be reared together [12,21,27]. While all papers included case-criteria definition used to select patients as assessed by item three, details on HC criteria were omitted or unclear in 11(20%) of the cases [17,2830,32,36,47,49,55]. Item four, five and nine related to whether the exposure was measured in a standard and valid way, whether how it was measured was consistent across participants and HCs and if the exposure period was sufficient to show an effect. While these items were not applicable to all cases, the articles that did have an exposure were consistently administered across both case and control groups 100% of the time. The exposure period was sufficient to in all cases (100%) [17,18,2023,2528,30,34,40,41,4345,50,57]. In most of the cases (20 out of 21), standard and valid measures for exposures was adhered to [12,17,18,2023,2528,30,34,40,41,4345,50,57]. Thirty four articles (61.8%) included appropriate statistical analysis, this is inclusive of normalisation of datasets where necessary and adjusting for multiple comparisons [11,13,14,1719,2224,2734,36,39,4143,45,48,53,55,57,58].

Discussion

Although there is no consensus on the pathomechanism of ME/CFS, neurological and cognitive dysfunction are key underlying features of this illness. The primary aim of this systematic review was to collect and appraise the literature related to the structural and functional neurological changes in ME/CFS patients as measured by neuroimaging techniques.

The mean age across all studies was 40.9 years for ME/CFS patients and 39.1 years for HCs. When considering the average illness duration of patients which was 9.68 years, this is consistent with epidemiological data that reports that onset of ME/CFS predominantly occurs around 29–35 years [66]. A greater proportion of participants included in this analysis were female (3:1, female: male), this was due to the preponderance of women who have ME/CFS [67]. Some studies [12,16,24,35,36,38,39,50,51,54,57,62] only selected females due to availability and to control for morphological and physiological differences in the brain and associated structures between sexes when pooling data [62]. These include differences in GM density and volume. For studies that did not appropriately sex-match their participants, this was a major shortcoming of their study as they could not account or adjust for these significant differences between sexes [62].

From the 55 studies, 14 handedness-matched the participants, this involves grouping patients on the basis of being right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous. This was a conservative approach to account for potential atypical lateralisation and other implications handedness has on brain structure and function. In a VBM study of 465 healthy adult brains they found minimal effect of handedness on symmetry [68]. This is supported by a review article that assessed the effect of handedness on the findings from numerous different neuroimaging techniques [69]. Therefore, handedness matching may not be a necessary consideration for future imaging studies.

In 14 studies, participants were weight or BMI matched. This was an effective measure to reduce the impact weight differences may have on neurological morphology and function; including, GMV and functional activation and/ or connectivity. As physical exercise also contributes to these differences, three studies (6.25%) recruited only sedentary controls [18,21,53]. Recruitment of only sedentary HCs to control for the effect of exercise on brain morphology and function is an important consideration for future studies. Three of the included papers were monozygotic twin studies [12,21,27]. Each twin pair shared at least 99.9% zygosity and comprised of a healthy twin and one discordant for ME/CFS [12,21,27]. The inclusion of an unaffected twin as a HC is effective in limiting the impact of genetic differences on brain morphology [12,21,27,70]. As the included studies had twins that were reared together, this might also effectively control for differences in environmental exposures [12,21,27]. There may be a limitation to using twin studies as ME/CFS has a significant genetic component and the effect this may have on the twin without a current diagnosis of ME/CFS is not known [71].

Out of the 55 papers, 43 relied on the Fukuda criteria to classify ME/CFS patients. With the requirement of only four key symptoms for a diagnosis, this criterion has been criticised for being too broad [6]. In addition to this, there is considerable overlap of key symptoms with other non- ME/CFS illnesses. Due to this potential overlap, the inclusion of additional patient characteristic information such as infection onset is also an important consideration for future studies. CCC and ICC-defined patients are a more homogenous subset of patients [7,8]. Across these studies there were only a small proportion of patients that fell under CCC and no patients included that were defined by ICC or IOM criteria [11,13,15,20,29,33,42,62]. This may be due to the lack of availability of participants that fall under these more refined CCC, ICC or IOM criteria. As Fukuda patients are a more heterogeneous subset of patients, this may explain the variability seen both within and between the studies. Inclusion of the Fukuda criteria was a limitation of our search strategy, however, due to this criteria being still abundantly used in research and clinical practice, limiting our search to not include papers that relied on the Fukuda criteria would drastically reduce the availability of appropriate papers in this field [72].

All these studies use standard clinical procedures to assess different aspects of neurocognitive function. While magnetoencephalography articles were searched, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria none of them were included in this review. Across all studies, no two used the exact same method or came to the same findings.

With the studies that investigated CBF in ME/CFS patients relative to controls there were a variety of results documented. This includes higher CBF volume reported in patients as well as no significant differences when compared to HCs. CBF values are sensitive to many parameters including exercise, cardiovascular health and blood pressure. OI is a symptom observed in a subset of ME/CFS and this also has been found to influence CBF levels [53,73]. However, it should be noted that the presence of OI was not consistently documented in these studies. Based on these results it is evident that CBF is an inconsistent correlate of ME/CFS.

The available literature shows conflicting evidence regarding changes in GMV in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs. A study conducted by de Lange et al reported lower levels of GM in ME/CFS patients [34,36]. These findings, however, were unable to be replicated when conducted in a larger representative sample [3436]. This follow-up study by Van der Schaaf et al [34] instead found no regional change in GMV in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs, a finding also corroborated by Shan et al and Barnden et al. [74]. In contrast, Finkelmeyer et al reported an increase in GMV in ME/CFS females compared with HCs. As with rCBF, GMV changes are sensitive to a plethora of interferential factors including chronic pain, stress, age, physical activity and insomnia [74]. As these features are variable, it is difficult to control for them and draw appropriate conclusions on GM volumes in ME/CFS patients.

WM changes including WMV [11, 13,14,15] and WM atrophy [31] were reported [11,14,15,31,33,34,42,58]. Bilateral WM atrophy accompanied by increased cortical thickness in both arcuate end points, the middle temporal and precentral gyri and the occipital lobe was described by Zeineh et al [31]. Four studies reported a decrease in WMV in ME/CFS patients in regions including the mid-brain, pons, right temporal lobe, occipital lobes and left IFOF [13,33,34,58]. Depression and anxiety often co-exist with ME/CFS and these disorders have been found to have disrupted WM architecture. A study conducted by Barnden et al [13] proposed that MRI differences in ME/CFS exist independent of the influence of these conditions. This article predicts that impaired brainstem nerve conduction is a result of depleted brainstem myelin. Impaired brainstem conduction can consequently lead to disrupted sensory, motor and cognitive function [75] and could explain multiple symptoms observed in ME/CFS patients including autonomic dysfunction, impaired cognition and sleep disturbance [11,13]. A more recent article by Barnden et al. [15] supported this case and suggested that this may be due to an upregulation of myelin in the sensorimotor cortex which was a potential compensatory mechanism to maintain brainstem-sensorimotor connectivity.

Inflammation of the midbrain along with cingulate, thalamus, amygdala, pons and hippocampus was reported by Nakatomi et al. [25]. While the underlying cause of the neuroinflammation in ME/CFS is unknown, overactivity of neurons resulting in the production of proinflammatory cytokines, reactive oxygen species and nitrogen species was proposed as a potential mechanism [25]. Shungu et al. [19] found that ventricular lactate and cortical GSH were inversely correlated. As they detected an increase of ventricular lactate in ME/CFS patients, depleted GSH was also observed. It was suggested that this was an indicator of redox dysregulation and increased oxidative stress [19]. This finding was supported by two other studies [52,64]. Studies that investigated this may be potentially due to Miller et al. [41] who described neuroinflammation as a potential mechanism underlying impaired neurotransmission in the basal ganglia. These features strongly suggest a neuroimmune process underlying ME/CFS pathology.

The most common morphological changes occurred within the cortical regions. The cortical regions are important for higher order processing and includes the cingulate cortex [76]. The cingulate region has broad roles in emotional, cognitive and error processing [77]. Changes in the cingulate cortex have also been associated with cognitive disruption, and this was observed in three of the included studies. Disruptions to working memory was also a consistent feature shown across studies that investigated cognitive ability in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs.

The cingulate cortex has strong reciprocal connections to the orbitofrontal cortex, the basal ganglia and the insula. The basal ganglia have important roles in reward-processing. Dysfunction of the basal ganglia has also been implicated in ME/CFS [41]. A fMRI study by Miller et al. [41] found that when performing a monetary gambling task, the right caudate and right globus pallidus were found to have significantly less activation in ME/CFS patient groups compared with HCs. The decreased activation detected in the right globus pallidus correlated with increased mental fatigue, general fatigue and reduced activity [41].

Disruption of the hippocampus was also observed in six studies. In the study conducted by Nakatomi et al. [25] they found that the binding potential of 1C-(R)-PK11195, a marker for neuroinflammation, in the hippocampus correlated with depression scores in ME/CFS patients. Significantly reduced serotonin receptors were also detected in ME/CFS particularly in the hippocampus. Depression is a comorbidity prevalently seen in patient groups as shown in the secondary measures and has been strongly associated with changes in this structure [78]. While the role of the hippocampus in ME/CFS pathology is not fully understood this indicates the importance of controlling for these comorbidities either statistically or through more stringent criteria.

Due to having strict inclusion and exclusion criteria on the basis of Cochrane guidelines, one paper, Kimura et al (2019) that was within the scope of the review, was excluded on the basis of not containing two key words in the abstract and title. This paper identified microstructural changes in ME/CFS using the MRI technique diffusional kurtosis imaging and neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging. A feature found in ME/CFS patients compared to HCs was that there was significantly lower mean kurtosis in the right superior longitudinal fasciculus. This pathway is involved in processes such as emotion, language, attention and memory and could be altered in ME/CFS patients, the study, however, is limited by sample size and the contribution of potential gender bias [79].

Disrupted FC was consistently reported in all six papers that conducted a FC analysis. The central executive CEN, SN and DMN are the most referred to intrinsic connectivity network relating to ME/CFS pathology. These networks are highly interconnected and disruptions to all three networks were correlated to cognitive dysfunction in ME/CFS patients. Abnormalities in the absence of a task were reported for all three and can provide insight into performance deficits with cognitive tasks [62].

Sleep disturbances have been described in ME/CFS patients, this is inclusive of: changes in sleep efficiency, unrefreshing sleep and sleep fragmentation [37,55]. A common trend found within these studies is that objective sleep measures did not correlate with subjective reports provided by ME/CFS patients. It was proposed that this difference may have arisen from a misperception. Shan et al. [42] found that there were brain structural differences in the medial prefrontal cortex that were associated with unrefreshing sleep, suggesting that there are structural impairments related to the subjective measure of impaired sleep quality. There were numerous more sleep studies investigating ME/CFS, however these are not covered in the scope of this review. Sleep specific—phenotypes and their association with ME/CFS patients still has not been determined.

Multiple differences in EEG activity have been reported. Decreased ultra-slow delta power in ME/CFS patients has also been reported [38]. These US delta power results suggest that there may be impairment at the level of cell membrane potential oscillations or neural recruitment. This shows the importance of going beyond conventional EEG bands [38]. BEAM identified significant differences in delta, theta and alpha 1 in the right frontal and left occipital regions between ME/CFS patients and HCs. This all suggests reduced activity in ME/CFS patients. The findings also indicate a decrease in overall complexity suggestive of relatively inhibitory state in brain function [46].

Due to functional impairment observed in the autonomic nervous system (ANS) of ME/CFS patients, the system may undergo progressive changes to adjust and compensate for this impairment. Numerous potential examples of ANS compensatory mechanisms were present across the studies; this includes, midbrain changes in nerve conduction resulting in downstream adaptation of the same circuits and upregulation of myelin in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs. Increases in FC in patient groups in response to disrupted FC elsewhere is another possible example of compensation [50,80]. Shan et al [33] also described neural plasticity through a longitudinal MRI study by assessing changes in left IFOF WM volumes over six years in patients compared to respective controls. While the effect of plasticity on the nervous system and ME/CFS is not well understood, longitudinal studies may be an important consideration for future studies in contrast to cross-sectional studies to better describe ME/CFS specific changes.

The search for definitive cerebral signatures for ME/CFS remains difficult. The lack of reproducibility of the studies and low sample size also contribute to the inability to arrive at a consensus regarding potential neurological markers for ME/CFS. There are, however, consistent examples of altered brain health, e.g. an increase in neuroinflammation suggestive of a neuroimmune mechanism and reduced functional efficiency.

Quality assessment

Quality levels were variable across the included studies in this review. All studies utilised standard measures for clinical evaluation of neurological changes including MRI, fMRI, PET and EEG. While all papers included selection criteria for ME/CFS patients, criteria for HCs were often omitted or not considered. Studies that applied two or more forms of patient-control matching, of which one had to be sex-matching, were deemed as successfully addressing item 1: whether the groups were comparable other than the presence of disease in cases or the absence of disease in HCs. This is due to the structural and physiological neurological differences between males and females, as well as discrepancies caused by weight and age. A large proportion of the studies identified potential confounding variables and control measures; this includes sex-, weight and age- matching, exclusion of certain medication classes, restriction of caffeine and alcohol as well as statistical adjustments for confounding factors such as anxiety and depression. The least addressed criterion was item two. This criterion assesses whether patient and HC groups were appropriately matched with regards to socio-demographic characteristics. This level of detail was only included in 39.6% of the studies in this review. One limitation of this quality assessment is that while quality measurement is on a spectrum level, the responses to these checklist questions provided could only be addressed at a categorical level, thus possibly introducing inter-reviewer bias. Recommendations for future studies in this field include independently analysing data from both sexes, referencing patient socio-demographics, providing additional information including comorbidities and medications.

Future directions

Validation of these findings reported in this review with larger sample sizes is necessary. Since the publication of many of these articles, the Fukuda definition is used less prominently in clinical and research practice. Emerging research will utilise the CCC, ICC and the IOM criteria more frequently. This change will allow for standardise patient cohorts to be analysed. Additionally, advancing technologies will also improve this area of research including the introduction of 7T MRI which offers improved spatial and contrast resolution; this may assist in discerning these findings. Use of machine learning tools such as ensembles will also revolutionise this field particularly in improving robustness, reducing error and allow recognition of imaging signatures at a single individual level [81].

Conclusion

This is the first systematic review that collected and appraised available literature relating to these neurological changes in ME/CFS patients as measured by neuroimaging techniques. Although there is a lack of agreement on the origins of this illness, ME/CFS patients exhibit widespread autonomic disruption inclusive of morphological changes, WM abnormalities and aberrations in FC. These characteristics were, however, not consistent across the studies and further research is required to understand neurological involvement in ME/CFS pathology.

Supporting information

S1 File. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

(DOC)

S2 File. Extended search term code.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Summary of study characteristics table.

(DOCX)

S4 File. Summary of participant characteristics table.

(DOCX)

S5 File. Summary of primary outcome results table.

(DOCX)

S6 File. Secondary outcome measures table.

(DOCX)

S7 File. JBI quality assessment table and descriptions.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the Stafford Fox Medical Research Foundation, the Mason Foundation, Mr. Douglas Stutt, Blake Beckett Foundation, Alison Hunter Memorial Foundation, the McCusker Charitable Foundation, Buxton Foundation, Mr and Mrs Stewart, Henty Community, Henty Lions Club and the Change for ME Charity. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S. Chronic fatigue syndrome. BMJ. 2000. January 29;320(7230):292–6. 10.1136/bmj.320.7230.292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Afari N, Buchwald D. Chronic fatigue syndrome: A review. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2003;160(2):221–36. 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.2.221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jain V, Arunkumar A, Kingdon C, Lacerda E, Nacul L. Prevalence of and risk factors for severe cognitive and sleep symptoms in ME/CFS and MS. BMC Neurology. 2017;17(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cabanas H, Muraki K, Balinas C, Eaton-Fitch N, Staines D, Marshall-Gradisnik S. Validation of impaired Transient Receptor Potential Melastatin 3 ion channel activity in natural killer cells from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ Myalgic Encephalomyelitis patients. Mol Med. 2019. April 23;25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Castro-Marrero J, Zaragozá MC, González-Garcia S, Aliste L, Sáez-Francàs N, Romero O, et al. Poor self-reported sleep quality and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. J Sleep Res. 2018;27(6). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fukuda K, Straus SE, Hickie I, Sharpe MC, Dobbins JG, Komaroff A. The chronic fatigue syndrome: a comprehensive approach to its definition and study. International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1994. December 15;121(12):953–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Carruthers BM, Van de Sande MI, De Meirleir KL, Klimas NG, Broderick G, Mitchell T, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2011;270(4):327–38. 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Carruthers BM, Jain AK, De Meirleir KL, Peterson DL, Klimas NG, Lemer AM, et al. Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: Clinical working case definition, diagnostic and treatment protocols. Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. 2003;11(1):7–115. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Maes M. Inflammatory and oxidative and nitrosative stress cascades as new drug targets in myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome In: Inflammation in Psychiatry. 2013. p. 162–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ludwig PE, Varacallo M. Neuroanatomy, Central Nervous System (CNS) In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2019. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Barnden LR, Crouch B, Kwiatek R, Burnet R, Mernone A, Chryssidis S, et al. A brain MRI study of chronic fatigue syndrome: evidence of brainstem dysfunction and altered homeostasis. NMR Biomed. 2011. December;24(10):1302–12. 10.1002/nbm.1692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Armitage R, Landis C, Hoffmann R, Lentz M, Watson N, Goldberg J, et al. Power spectral analysis of sleep EEG in twins discordant for chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 2009. January;66(1):51–7. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.08.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Barnden LR, Crouch B, Kwiatek R, Burnet R, Del Fante P. Evidence in chronic fatigue syndrome for severity-dependent upregulation of prefrontal myelination that is independent of anxiety and depression. NMR Biomed. 2015. March;28(3):404–13. 10.1002/nbm.3261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Barnden LR, Kwiatek R, Crouch B, Burnet R, Del Fante P. Autonomic correlations with MRI are abnormal in the brainstem vasomotor centre in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Neuroimage Clin. 2016;11:530–7. 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.03.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Barnden LR, Shan ZY, Staines DR, Marshall-Gradisnik S, Finegan K, Ireland T, et al. Hyperintense sensorimotor T1 spin echo MRI is associated with brainstem abnormality in chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuroimage Clin. 2018;20:102–9. 10.1016/j.nicl.2018.07.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Boissoneault J, Letzen J, Lai S, O’Shea A, Craggs J, Robinson ME, et al. Abnormal resting state functional connectivity in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: an arterial spin-labeling fMRI study. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016. May;34(4):603–8. 10.1016/j.mri.2015.12.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cleare AJ, Messa C, Rabiner EA, Grasby PM. Brain 5-HT1A receptor binding in chronic fatigue syndrome measured using positron emission tomography and [11C]WAY-100635. Biol Psychiatry. 2005. February 1;57(3):239–46. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.10.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cook D.B., O’Connor P.J., Lange G., Steffener J. Functional neuroimaging correlates of mental fatigue induced by cognition among chronic fatigue syndrome patients and controls. NeuroImage. 2007;36(1):108–22. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.02.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shungu DC, Weiduschat N, Murrough JW, Mao X, Pillemer S, Dyke JP, et al. Increased ventricular lactate in chronic fatigue syndrome. III. Relationships to cortical glutathione and clinical symptoms implicate oxidative stress in disorder pathophysiology. NMR Biomed. 2012. September;25(9):1073–87. 10.1002/nbm.2772 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Staud R., Boissoneault J., Craggs J.G., Lai S., Robinson M.E. Task related cerebral blood flow changes of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: an arterial spin labeling study. Fatigue Biomed Health Behav. 2018;6(2):63–79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lewis DH, Mayberg HS, Fischer ME, Goldberg J, Ashton S, Graham MM, et al. Monozygotic twins discordant for chronic fatigue syndrome: regional cerebral blood flow SPECT. Radiology. 2001. June;219(3):766–73. 10.1148/radiology.219.3.r01jn18766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Caseras X, Mataix-Cols D, Giampietro V, Rimes KA, Brammer M, Zelaya F, et al. Probing the working memory system in chronic fatigue syndrome: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study using the n-back task. Psychosom Med. 2006. December;68(6):947–55. 10.1097/01.psy.0000242770.50979.5f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Caseras X, Mataix-Cols D, Rimes KA, Giampietro V, Brammer M, Zelaya F, et al. The neural correlates of fatigue: an exploratory imaginal fatigue provocation study in chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychol Med. 2008. July;38(7):941–51. 10.1017/S0033291708003450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kim B-H, Namkoong K, Kim J-J, Lee S, Yoon KJ, Choi M, et al. Altered resting-state functional connectivity in women with chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychiatry Res. 2015. December 30;234(3):292–7. 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2015.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nakatomi Y, Mizuno K, Ishii A, Wada Y, Tanaka M, Tazawa S, et al. Neuroinflammation in Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: An 11C-(R)-PK11195 PET Study. J Nucl Med. 2014. June;55(6):945–50. 10.2967/jnumed.113.131045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Schmaling KB, Lewis DH, Fiedelak JI, Mahurin R, Buchwald DS. Single-photon emission computerized tomography and neurocognitive function in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychosom Med. 2003. February;65(1):129–36. 10.1097/01.psy.0000038942.33335.9b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sherlin L, Budzynski T, Kogan Budzynski H, Congedo M, Fischer ME, Buchwald D. Low-resolution electromagnetic brain tomography (LORETA) of monozygotic twins discordant for chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuroimage. 2007. February 15;34(4):1438–42. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yamamoto S, Ouchi Y, Onoe H, Yoshikawa E, Tsukada H, Takahashi H, et al. Reduction of serotonin transporters of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuroreport. 2004. December 3;15(17):2571–4. 10.1097/00001756-200412030-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zinn ML, Zinn MA, Jason LA. Intrinsic Functional Hypoconnectivity in Core Neurocognitive Networks Suggests Central Nervous System Pathology in Patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: A Pilot Study. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2016;41(3):283–300. 10.1007/s10484-016-9331-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yamamoto S, Ouchi Y, Nakatsuka D, Tahara T, Mizuno K, Tajima S, et al. Reduction of [11C](+)3-MPB binding in brain of chronic fatigue syndrome with serum autoantibody against muscarinic cholinergic receptor. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(12):e51515 10.1371/journal.pone.0051515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zeineh MM, Kang J, Atlas SW, Raman MM, Reiss AL, Norris JL, et al. Right arcuate fasciculus abnormality in chronic fatigue syndrome. Radiology. 2015. February;274(2):517–26. 10.1148/radiol.14141079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Okada T, Tanaka M, Kuratsune H, Watanabe Y, Sadato N. Mechanisms underlying fatigue: a voxel-based morphometric study of chronic fatigue syndrome. BMC Neurol. 2004. October 4;4(1):14 10.1186/1471-2377-4-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shan ZY, Kwiatek R, Burnet R, Del Fante P, Staines DR, Marshall-Gradisnik SM, et al. Progressive brain changes in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: A longitudinal MRI study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;44(5):1301–11. 10.1002/jmri.25283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Finkelmeyer A, He J, Maclachlan L, Watson S, Gallagher P, Newton JL, et al. Grey and white matter differences in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome—A voxel-based morphometry study. Neuroimage Clin. 2018;17:24–30. 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.09.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.van der Schaaf ME, De Lange FP, Schmits IC, Geurts DEM, Roelofs K, van der Meer JWM, et al. Prefrontal Structure Varies as a Function of Pain Symptoms in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Biol Psychiatry. 2017. 15;81(4):358–65. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.07.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.de Lange FP, Kalkman JS, Bleijenberg G, Hagoort P, van der Meer JWM, Toni I. Gray matter volume reduction in the chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuroimage. 2005. July 1;26(3):777–81. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Decker MJ, Tabassum H, Lin J-MS, Reeves WC. Electroencephalographic correlates of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Behavioral And Brain Functions: BBF. 2009. October 6;5:43–43. 10.1186/1744-9081-5-43 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Le Bon O, Neu D, Berquin Y, Lanquart J-P, Hoffmann R, Mairesse O, et al. Ultra-slow delta power in chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychiatry Res. 2012. December 30;200(2–3):742–7. 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.06.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Flor-Henry P, Lind JC, Koles ZJ. EEG source analysis of chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychiatry Res. 2010. February 28;181(2):155–64. 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2009.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lange G, Steffener J, Cook DB, Bly BM, Christodoulou C, Liu W-C, et al. Objective evidence of cognitive complaints in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: a BOLD fMRI study of verbal working memory. Neuroimage. 2005. June;26(2):513–24. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Miller AH, Jones JF, Drake DF, Tian H, Unger ER, Pagnoni G. Decreased basal ganglia activation in subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome: association with symptoms of fatigue. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(5):e98156 10.1371/journal.pone.0098156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Shan Z.Y., Kwiatek R., Burnet R., Del Fante P., Staines D.R., Marshall-Gradisnik S.M., et al. Medial prefrontal cortex deficits correlate with unrefreshing sleep in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. NMR Biomed. 2017;30(10). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Shan ZY, Finegan K, Bhuta S, Ireland T, Staines DR, Marshall-Gradisnik SM, et al. Decreased Connectivity and Increased Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent Complexity in the Default Mode Network in Individuals with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Brain Connect. 2018;8(1):33–9. 10.1089/brain.2017.0549 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Siessmeier T, Nix WA, Hardt J, Schreckenberger M, Egle UT, Bartenstein P. Observer independent analysis of cerebral glucose metabolism in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003. July;74(7):922–8. 10.1136/jnnp.74.7.922 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tanaka M, Sadato N, Okada T, Mizuno K, Sasabe T, Tanabe HC, et al. Reduced responsiveness is an essential feature of chronic fatigue syndrome: a fMRI study. BMC Neurol. 2006. February 22;6:9 10.1186/1471-2377-6-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wu T, Qi X, Su Y, Teng J, Xu X. Electroencephalogram characteristics in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. 2016;12:241–9. 10.2147/NDT.S92911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zinn M.A., Zinn M.L., Jason L.A. Small-world network analysis of cortical connectivity in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome using quantitative EEG. NeuroRegul. 2017;4(3–4):125–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zinn MA, Zinn ML, Valencia I, Jason LA, Montoya JG. Cortical hypoactivation during resting EEG suggests central nervous system pathology in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Biol Psychol. 2018;136:87–99. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.05.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Biswal B, Kunwar P, Natelson BH. Cerebral blood flow is reduced in chronic fatigue syndrome as assessed by arterial spin labeling. J Neurol Sci. 2011. February 15;301(1–2):9–11. 10.1016/j.jns.2010.11.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Boissoneault J, Letzen J, Lai S, Robinson ME, Staud R. Static and dynamic functional connectivity in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: use of arterial spin labelling fMRI. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2018. January;38(1):128–37. 10.1111/cpf.12393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Boissoneault J., Letzen J., Robinson M., Staud R. Cerebral blood flow and heart rate variability predict fatigue severity in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Brain Imaging Behav. 2019;13(3):789–97. 10.1007/s11682-018-9897-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Murrough JW, Mao X, Collins KA, Kelly C, Andrade G, Nestadt P, et al. Increased ventricular lactate in chronic fatigue syndrome measured by 1H MRS imaging at 3.0 T. II: comparison with major depressive disorder. NMR Biomed. 2010. July;23(6):643–50. 10.1002/nbm.1512 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Finkelmeyer A, He Jiabao, Maclachlan L, Blamire AM, Newton JL. Intracranial compliance is associated with symptoms of orthostatic intolerance in chronic fatigue syndrome. PLoS One. 2018. July;13(7). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Neu D., Kajosch H., Peigneux P., Verbanck P., Linkowski P., Le Bon O. Cognitive impairment in fatigue and sleepiness associated conditions. Psychiatry Res. 2011;189(1):128–34. 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Neu D., Mairesse O., Verbanck P., Linkowski P., Le Bon O. Non-REM sleep EEG power distribution in fatigue and sleepiness. J Psychosom Res. 2014;76(4):286–91. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.02.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Perrin R, Embleton K, Pentreath VW, Jackson A. Longitudinal MRI shows no cerebral abnormality in chronic fatigue syndrome. Br J Radiol. 2010. May;83(989):419–23. 10.1259/bjr/85621779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.de Lange FP, Kalkman JS, Bleijenberg G, Hagoort P, van der Werf SP, van der Meer JWM, et al. Neural correlates of the chronic fatigue syndrome—an fMRI study. Brain. 2004. September;127(Pt 9):1948–57. 10.1093/brain/awh225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Puri BK, Jakeman PM, Agour M, Gunatilake KDR, Fernando K a. C, Gurusinghe AI, et al. Regional grey and white matter volumetric changes in myalgic encephalomyelitis (chronic fatigue syndrome): a voxel-based morphometry 3 T MRI study. Br J Radiol. 2012. July;85(1015):e270–273. 10.1259/bjr/93889091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Puri BK, Counsell SJ, Zaman R, Main J, Collins AG, Hajnal JV, et al. Relative increase in choline in the occipital cortex in chronic fatigue syndrome. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002. September;106(3):224–6. 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2002.01300.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Chaudhuri A. The role of neurodiagnostics in functional disorders. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2002. February;16(1):63. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Vuong QC, Allison JR, Finkelmeyer A, Newton J, Durham J. Brain Responses in CFS and TMD to Autonomic Challenges: An Exploratory fMRI Study. JDR Clinical & Translational Research. 2019. August 28;2380084419872135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Gay C., O’Shea A., Robinson M., Craggs J., Staud R. Default mode network connectivity in chronic fatigue syndrome patients. J Pain. 2015;16(4):S54. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Shan ZY, Finegan K, Bhuta S, Ireland T, Staines DR, Marshall-Gradisnik SM, et al. Decreased Connectivity and Increased Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent Complexity in the Default Mode Network in Individuals with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Brain Connect. 2018;8(1):33–9. 10.1089/brain.2017.0549 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Mathew SJ, Mao X, Keegan KA, Levine SM, Smith ELP, Heier LA, et al. Ventricular cerebrospinal fluid lactate is increased in chronic fatigue syndrome compared with generalized anxiety disorder: an in vivo 3.0 T (1)H MRS imaging study. NMR Biomed. 2009. April;22(3):251–8. 10.1002/nbm.1315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mueller C, Lin JC, Sheriff S, Maudsley AA, Younger JW. Evidence of widespread metabolite abnormalities in Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: assessment with whole-brain magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Brain Imaging and Behavior. 2019; [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Prins JB, Van Der Meer JWM, Bleijenberg G. Chronic fatigue syndrome. Lancet. 2006;367(9507):346–55. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68073-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Valdez AR, Hancock EE, Adebayo S, Kiernicki DJ, Proskauer D, Attewell JR, et al. Estimating Prevalence, Demographics, and Costs of ME/CFS Using Large Scale Medical Claims Data and Machine Learning. Front Pediatr. 2018;6:412 10.3389/fped.2018.00412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Good CD, Johnsrude I, Ashburner J, Henson RNA, Friston KJ, Frackowiak RSJ. Cerebral Asymmetry and the Effects of Sex and Handedness on Brain Structure: A Voxel-Based Morphometric Analysis of 465 Normal Adult Human Brains. NeuroImage. 2001. September 1;14(3):685–700. 10.1006/nimg.2001.0857 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Bailey LM, McMillan LE, Newman AJ. A sinister subject: Quantifying handedness-based recruitment biases in current neuroimaging research. Eur J Neurosci. 2019. August 13; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Mohr A, Weisbrod M, Schellinger P, Knauth M. The similarity of brain morphology in healthy monozygotic twins. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004. June;20(1):106–10. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Schlauch KA, Khaiboullina SF, De Meirleir KL, Rawat S, Petereit J, Rizvanov AA, et al. Genome-wide association analysis identifies genetic variations in subjects with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Transl Psychiatry. 2016. February;6(2):e730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Committee on the Diagnostic Criteria for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Board on the Health of Select Populations, Institute of Medicine. Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Redefining an Illness [Internet]. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015 [cited 2020 Apr 15]. (The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK274235/
  • 73.Ocon AJ, Medow MS, Taneja I, Clarke D, Stewart JM. Decreased upright cerebral blood flow and cerebral autoregulation in normocapnic postural tachycardia syndrome. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2009. August;297(2):H664–73. 10.1152/ajpheart.00138.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Tang L-W, Zheng H, Chen L, Zhou S-Y, Huang W-J, Li Y, et al. Gray matter volumes in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2015;2015:380615 10.1155/2015/380615 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Fields RD. Change in the Brain’s White Matter. Science. 2010. November 5;330(6005):768–9. 10.1126/science.1199139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Chomiak T, Hu B. Mechanisms of Hierarchical Cortical Maturation. Front Cell Neurosci. 2017;11:272 10.3389/fncel.2017.00272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Jumah FR, Dossani RH. Neuroanatomy, Cingulate Cortex In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2019. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Sheline YI, Mittler BL, Mintun MA. The hippocampus and depression1To be presented at ECNP Barcelona, 5–9 October 2002, during the symposium “A new pharmacology of depression: the concept of synaptic plasticity”. European Psychiatry. 2002. July 1;17:300–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Kimura Y., Sato N., Ota M., Shigemoto Y., Morimoto E., Enokizono M., et al. Brain abnormalities in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: Evaluation by diffusional kurtosis imaging and neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;49(3):818–24. 10.1002/jmri.26247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Gardini S, Venneri A, Sambataro F, Cuetos F, Fasano F, Marchi M, et al. Increased functional connectivity in the default mode network in mild cognitive impairment: a maladaptive compensatory mechanism associated with poor semantic memory performance. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;45(2):457–70. 10.3233/JAD-142547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Davatzikos C. Machine learning in neuroimaging: Progress and challenges. Neuroimage. 2019. August 15;197:652–6. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.10.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marcello Moccia

21 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-34471

A Systematic Review of neurological and cognitive impairments in myalgic encephalomyelitis/ chronic fatigue syndrome using neuroimaging techniques.

PLOS ONE

Dear Miss Maksoud,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Reviewers and I agreed major revision is required. I would especially recommend you improve search criteria/paper inclusivity, and better discuss study findings. Please, find below detailed comments.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 06 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcello Moccia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for submitting your interesting manuscript. Reviewers and I agreed major revision is required. I would especially recommend you improve search criteria/paper inclusivity, and better discuss study findings. Please, find below detailed comments.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a copy of Table 5 which you refer to in your text on page 15.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a systematic review on ME/CFS research using neuroimaging techniques. The authors selected 48 articles based on procedures commonly applied in systemic reviews.The authors picked up various imaging techniques including MRI, SPECT and EEG, which provide precious information on this topic.In total, the reviewer thinks it is an important work, which potentially indicate future directions.However, the reviewer think there are some arguments which are shown below.

1.The review process is not completely clear.

The authors finally picked up 48 papers and discussed in detail.Although the authors described the details of the process (in Fig.1), the reviewer are not completely convinced with the final selection process, where 98 articles were excluded. Below are examples the reviewer does not understand why they are not included.

Munemoto, T., Soejima, Y., Masuda, A., Nakabeppu, Y., & Tei, C. (2017). Increase in the regional cerebral blood flow following Waon therapy in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: a pilot study. Internal Medicine, 56(14), 1817-1824.

Kimura, Y., Sato, N., Ota, M., Shigemoto, Y., Morimoto, E., Enokizono, M., ... & Sato, W. (2019). Brain abnormalities in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: Evaluation by diffusional kurtosis imaging and neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 49(3), 818-824.

Both papers are from Asia (Japan). A paper by Munemoto et al utilize SPECT and a paper by Kimura et al describe MRI abnormalities of ME/CFS patients as compared to healthy subjests using diffusion kurtosis imaging.Such study using new techniques would shed light on new aspects of ME/CFS.

2. Comparison between ME/CFS and disease-controls.

Although the paper focus on the difference between ME/CFS and healthy subjects, the reader would be interested in the comparison with other diseases as well. How about mentioning about the studies (or reviews) comparing ME/CFS and other diseases (for example,comparisons between ME/CFS and depression with regards to SPECT et ctc.). Even if there are no good studies ever performed, the authors could discuss this point in the discussion section (as a future direction).

3. Description about the 'normal-appearing' or 'non-specific' findings.

It is known that in conventional MRI, ME/CFS brain looks basically normal(different from neuroimmunological diseases such as multiple sclerosis). The authors are advised to discuss on this point. It was pointed out that there exists some 'non-specific' T2 high spots scattering in the ME/CFS brain. What does it mean? Is there any new analysis on this point? The review would be improved by including such information.

4. Future directions.

In the discussion section, it would be better to include 'future direction' section, which might include a potential advantages of new technologies such as 7T MRI.

Reviewer #2: Peer review: PLOS ONE

Neurological and cognitive impairments

This is a most welcome effort that can help the ME/CFS field to better organize and understand the neurological component of symptoms, and we appreciate the care and work that must have gone into this draft. Comments and critiques are given in the spirit of making a potentially worthy resource even better.

Our primary critiques and suggestions center around organization, inclusivity of papers, and descriptions of research findings.

Organization: in general, the manuscript would greatly benefit from editing and organization.

The Quality Assessment was described twice (the second description was more concise and clear than the first). The “Discussion” section reads more like a separate draft of the earlier findings, as opposed to a gestalt summary of them. It is somewhat unclear what the overall organization scheme is - for example “Literature reporting changes in brain structure” and “Literature reporting changes in gray and white matter” are currently separate sections, but these two sentences are synonyms: structural studies are, by definition, studies of gray and white matter. What is currently “changes in brain structure” now includes both structural and functional studies, which are traditionally considered separate categories of dependent measures in neuroimaging. The paper should be read carefully, front to back, by someone with neuroimaging expertise so these kinds of mistakes can be fixed. Another example is Line 187 in which reference 57 is listed among studies of hippocampal function, but it is a study of hippocampal structure and not function. Line 411 begins the header “Neurological and cognitive changes…” but then grey matter volume and white matter volume studies follow.

The paper should be carefully edited by someone with neuroimaging expertise so these kinds of errors can be fixed. Scattered throughout the paper are other small errors, for example Line 270 describing arterial spin labeling as a measure of functional connectivity (it is not), and what appears to be a conflation of hippocampus and hypothalamus (Line 482). A careful reading by a neuroimaging expert should catch these small errors - Given the stigma surrounding this illness, it is imperative that published work portrays expertise and accuracy, the current draft does not.

It is also important that patients who will read this article do not mistakenly believe that each reported finding represents an established biomarker. A neuroimaging review is a useful potential resource, but in general the current draft lacks contextualization. There are example of contradictory findings, for example starting at Line 167, the section on cingulate - this is a very large and heterogenous brain region, and the reported findings are sometimes directly contradictory (e.g., separate findings describing both hyperactivation and hypoperfusion in posterior cingulate/ praecuneus). These inconsistencies should be pointed out, currently they are glossed over in a list of findings.

There are some things that are unnecessarily stated multiple times (e.g., the single report of fractional anisotropy in arcuate fasciculus, lines 208, 222, 231, 434, 475, and Table 3). This inappropriately gives the impression of a definitive and well-founded biomarker finding when in fact it was a small (N=15 patients vs 14 controls) and unreplicated study. This sort of contextualization of findings is important for a review article; one can picture a patient inappropriately telling his/her physician that they have an arcuate fasciculus problem. The reality is that most of the reviewed studies are small and unreplicated, and some (if not most) findings are likely to represent Type 1 errors in a heterogenous diagnosis - this should be made more clear in an Introduction or a Discussion section. General principles such as loss of volume due to poor brain health, increased infection/neuroinflammation-associated markers, and reduced functional efficiency could be described, so that the paper is more than a laundry list of disparate reports.

The current draft reads like a review of neuroimaging studies - a very valuable resource - but not a review cognitive studies. Given that the focus is on neuroimaging per se and not cognitive dysfunction, “Cognitive” should probably not be in the title: for example, Gotts et al (2015) PLoS ONE is a study of sleep and cognition - two topics that are covered in this review. But it is not referenced or discussed in the current review because it was not a neuroimaging study. “A systematic review of neuroimaging….” may be an example of better phrasing for the title. If there is to be a focus on cognition per se, even outside of the scanner, then there should be an approach more like Cvejic et al. (2016), including search terms related to cognitive testing.

The literature search may benefit from some more inclusive terms, and from the use of other review articles.

Line 65: “Myalgic encephalomyelitis” should be listed among the search terms, as should MECFS, ME/CFS, CFSME, and other iterations. “Magnetic resonance spectroscopy” and related iterations should also be included.

The paper 'Costa et al (1995) Brainstem perfusion...' appears to have been missed; it used “SPET” single photon emission tomography, this may have been missed by using the more specific and constrained search of “tomography, emission-computed, single-photon” - perhaps simply using “tomography” would be more inclusive and it would also catch PET studies.

We suggest that the authors include “magnetic resonance spectroscopy” in the search terms to make the study list more inclusive. For example, Murrough et al. (2010), NMR in Biomedicine, Mathew et al. (2008), NMR in Biomedicine. From the 10 spectroscopy papers listed in VanElzakker, Brumfield, & Mejia 2019, only 2 were included in the current review. There have been a handful of neuroimaging reviews that could also be a source for appropriate papers, by looking through references:

Morris, Berk & Puri (2018); VanElzakker, Brumfield, & Mejia 2019;

www.meresearch.org.uk/information/publications/structural-and-functional-neuroimaging

See also Byron Hyde’s books.

We were surprised that a vast majority of studies were based on Fukuda criteria. One key problem with the Fukuda definition is that it likely includes individuals who deal with fatigue but do not share the same pathophysiology as ‘true’ ME/CFS. Inclusion of “Infectious Onset” as a ME/CFS cohort descriptor would be particularly helpful, if this is not possible it should be described as a limitation.

Line 68: Please correct this numbering for the supplementary material (listed as S1 but is actually S2). This problem occurs throughout the paper. Please address all mentions of supplementary materials.

Line 85: IOM criteria not listed here; given its prominence, if this was deliberate it should be stated explicitly. This is especially salient given the preponderance of Fukuda papers referenced.

Line 95

The authors describe that this manuscript intended to review and survey studies comparing ME/CFS to healthy controls, but it appears that some papers which make such a comparison were not included simply because they also made other comparisons. There are some examples of papers that have more than two groups - for example, Natelson et al (2017), Fatigue Biomedicine Health & Behavior 5(1). Given that there was a comparison between ME/CFS and healthy controls in that paper, it should probably be included (and the comparison to fibromyalgia can be ignored, in accordance with the self-imposed criteria for the current review). Other examples of this should be looked for.

Line 96

Please explain the reasoning for excluding sleep intervention studies. Was it all intervention studies that appeared in your search that you excluded or solely the sleep intervention studies? Please explain if this distinction was made and why. Was the exclusion only for studies that attempted to alter or influence sleep?

Line 113: the PubMed search term list was unusually short compared to the others, please explain.

Line 128, did any studies report race or ethnicity?

Line 136, in general, sentences should not begin with numerals (see elsewhere as well, e.g., Line 121) - a minor formatting issue throughout that should be edited. Line 328 vs line 329, “Table” and “Figure” should have consistent capitalization throughout.

Line 139: we believe the authors meant “spectroscopy” - this is technically an fMRI technique (functional). In general, neuroimaging studies are usually described according to a distinction between functional and structural; this distinction could be made clear throughout the paper.

Line 147 describes MRS and finding a difference in rCBF, but this is not something that MRS can do. We believe the authors intended to describe the ASL technique’s finding. In general, there were several instances in which more than one technique was used (MRI machines can of course do multiple methods of structure and function) and a result was described according to a different method. ASL is usually considered a form of fMRI (it describes function, not structure).

Line 163: Did the authors intend to write “intercranial compliance” ? In general, this is an example of a finding that would benefit from even a brief interpretation or explanation.

Line 187 - (organisation) hippocampus function is listed in a section on brain structure, and EEG findings are not listed in the section on electrical activity.

Line 189 - no comma after “Significantly”

Line 200 - It is true that myelin levels may be associated with T1 signal; however, studies examining myelin usually use a T1/T2 ratio and not simply T1 signal, which is much harder to interpret. It should be made clear that “myelin levels” is an interpretation of a finding as opposed to an empirical finding (elsewhere in the paper as well). Relatedly, Line 203 should explicitly state what variables were correlated, and take care to describe the difference between the reported statistical finding and its proposed interpretation.

Line 207 - the word “study” should follow “DTI”, line 208 the term FA appears unnecessarily; the word “arcuate” is misspelled

Line 213-220 - terms like “decrease” used as a verb sounds like longitudinal study findings; this wording should be clarified in case-control comparisons that cannot delineate a pre-existing risk factor from a disease process (i.e., smaller volumes may be the cause or may be the effect of a disease)

Line 257 - Another example of a reported finding that would benefit from even a small amount of explanation, example wording could be something like “small worldness, or propensity for local functional connectivity over long-range functional connectivity...” Line 264, Citation 46 - this is another example of why contextualization is important: the “inhibitory state” was an interpretation of results in a study comparing 24 patients to 23 controls, and was not an empirical finding. Again, the sleep & electrical sections could benefit from a small overall summary so that it is not simply a list of papers.

Line 291 - patients had or patients exhibited; not patients reported

Line 298 - typos

Line 302 unclear wording, line 309 unclear wording; but more importantly: line 302 vs line 308 different auditory tasks appear to have a positive vs a null finding. Are the two studies comparable? Are they inconsistent? Is there a possible conceptual or mechanistic reason for why these two studies seemed to find different things? An example where contextualization would be helpful.

Line 312 - dACC is usually not referred to as a nucleus

Line 314 - a finding that needs some explanation or contextualization

Line 333 - briefly define ‘role function’ - also wording in 353 - 356, explain ‘exposure period was sufficient to’

Line 337 - Organisation: Quality assessment seems more like a “Methods” topic, used in the initial selection of papers. In general, one cannot read this section and understand what the authors did - if these methods are truly central to paper quality assessment, this table should either be moved from supplemental into the main paper, or the text should be much more descriptive and not rely upon flipping back and forth between the text and the table to understand what is being described. Line 523 begins a clearer description of what seems to be described in 337.

Line 362 - begins the “Discussion” but what follows seems more like main text, including descriptions of the participants & study characteristics. Line 411 is a section titled “Neurological and cognitive changes in ME/CFS patients” which appears to be very similar to the sections in the earlier half of the paper. The “Discussion” section should probably be relatively short and offer some take-away messages about the overall findings. It should probably not introduce new topics, except to briefly point out limitations or future directions.

Line 431, references should follow each statement separately - in other words, studies that reported white matter hyperintensities should follow “WM hyperintensities” - white matter atrophy and white matter volume are synonymous, but references supporting this statement should follow that statement specifically.

Line 432 - “not of pathological significance” is an interpretation. Line 438 “established” is too strong; the author is making an argument based upon interpretation of data (this also directly contradicts line 482); 444 - “upregulation of myelin” is an interpretation and not an empirical finding.

Line 486 - define ICN, and please make sure all other acronyms are defined

Line 487 - This sentence fragment seems like evidence that the paper was not proofread by all authors. Please assure that all authors have read and edited the paper before resubmission.

Line 492 - hippocampus is itself a limbic structure. Was 'hippocampus' and 'hypothalamus' again switched? One does not normally think of hippocampus as central to arousal.

Line 518 - “compensation” is an example of an interpretation or theory, not an empirical finding, and should be framed as such.

Table:

For the table, the term USA is more appropriate, because Brazil is in “America” but this does not seem like important information when judging the quality and findings of studies. Perhaps a “Method of analysis” column has room for more information, for example it could include the Tesla strength of MRI. The “sample type” column did not seem important given that all entries said “CFS/ME.” The table also lists all studies as “prospective” but we believe this may be a misapplication of the term, which would mean that subjects were scanned before they developed the disease (see also Line 122, 123, 124). http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/EP/EP713_AnalyticOverview/EP713_AnalyticOverview3.html

It is again important that senior authors carefully read the entire paper.

Reviewer #3: The article is a systematic review of the various neurological and cognitive defects in ME/CFS. There has been extensive research investigating neuroinflammation and associated impairments in ME/CFS, using various imaging modalities. The authors have done a good job in compiling the various pertinent aspects. This paper will be of interest to existing researchers in the field, as well as for new researchers.

There are a few issues that the authors needs to address:

1. Why was Fukuda the primary chosen criteria? As the authors have rightly pointed out, it is too broad according to the majority of researchers and clinicians.

2. Are there no articles available using some of the more restrictive criteria (IOM for example?) that the authors could have used?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 30;15(4):e0232475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232475.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 Mar 2020

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #1, comment 1: The review process is not completely clear. The authors finally picked up 48 papers and discussed in detail. Although the authors described the details of the process (in Fig.1), the reviewer are not completely convinced with the final selection process, where 98 articles were excluded. Below are examples the reviewer does not understand why they are not included.

Munemoto, T., Soejima, Y., Masuda, A., Nakabeppu, Y., & Tei, C. (2017). Increase in the regional cerebral blood flow following Waon therapy in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: a pilot study. Internal Medicine, 56(14), 1817-1824.

Kimura, Y., Sato, N., Ota, M., Shigemoto, Y., Morimoto, E., Enokizono, M., ... & Sato, W. (2019). Brain abnormalities in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: Evaluation by diffusional kurtosis imaging and neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 49(3), 818-824.

Both papers are from Asia (Japan). A paper by Munemoto et al utilize SPECT and a paper by Kimura et al describe MRI abnormalities of ME/CFS patients as compared to healthy subjests using diffusion kurtosis imaging.Such study using new techniques would shed light on new aspects of ME/CFS.

Authors Response: Considered and unmodified in the manuscript. Munemoto et al included a participant that was under 18 and used an alternative paediatric case definition that was not covered in our inclusion/ exclusion criteria. Kimura et al, was excluded during the abstract/ title screening process as it did not contain any of the listed key words.

Reviewer #1, comment 2: Comparison between ME/CFS and disease-controls. Although the paper focus on the difference between ME/CFS and healthy subjects, the reader would be interested in the comparison with other diseases as well. How about mentioning about the studies (or reviews) comparing ME/CFS and other diseases (for example,comparisons between ME/CFS and depression with regards to SPECT et ctc.). Even if there are no good studies ever performed, the authors could discuss this point in the discussion section (as a future direction).

Authors Response: Considered and unmodified in the manuscript. Reviewing studies on the neurological differences between ME/CFS patients and diseased controls is a detailed process that justifies its own investigation and was beyond the intended focus of this review.

Reviewer #1, comment 3: Description about the 'normal-appearing' or 'non-specific' findings. It is known that in conventional MRI, ME/CFS brain looks basically normal(different from neuroimmunological diseases such as multiple sclerosis). The authors are advised to discuss on this point. It was pointed out that there exists some 'non-specific' T2 high spots scattering in the ME/CFS brain. What does it mean? Is there any new analysis on this point? The review would be improved by including such information.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. Descriptions on the results from all the included studies have been provided. The statement “The search for definitive cerebral signatures for ME/CFS remains difficult” (line 524) has been included to emphasise that there are not consistent cerebral markers found yet.

Reviewer #1, comment 4: Future directions. In the discussion section, it would be better to include 'future direction' section, which might include a potential advantages of new technologies such as 7T MRI.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. A future directions section has been added to the discussion. This section reads as: validation of these findings reported in this review with larger sample sizes is necessary. Since the publication of many of these articles the Fukuda definition is used less prominently in clinical and research practice. Emerging research will utilise the CCC, ICC and the IOM criteria more frequently. This change will allow for standardise patient cohorts to be analysed. Additionally, advancing technologies will also improve this area of research including the introduction of 7T MRI which offers improved spatial and contrast resolution; this may assist in discerning these findings. Use of machine learning tools such as ensembles will also revolutionise this field particularly in improving robustness, reducing error and allow recognition of imaging signatures at a single individual level (line 548).

Reviewer #2:

Reviewer #2, comment 1: The Quality Assessment was described twice (the second description was more concise and clear than the first).

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The following details have been added to the quality assessment (QA) methodology: Each checklist item assesses the following: (1) group matching, (2) source population, (3) criteria, (4) method of exposure, (5) assessment of exposure, (6) identification of confounding variables, (7) management of confounding variables, (8) measurement of outcomes, (9) exposure period selection, (10) statistical analysis (line 111). Details of the methodology has also been removed from the discussion section. Upon consultation of guidelines and correspondence with a PLOS ONE editorial team member (31st March correspondence) the quality assessment table is required to be presented as supporting information and can’t be moved to the main text.

Reviewer #2, comment 2: “Literature reporting changes in brain structure” and “Literature reporting changes in gray and white matter” are currently separate sections, but these two sentences are synonyms: structural studies are, by definition, studies of gray and white matter. What is currently “changes in brain structure” now includes both structural and functional studies, which are traditionally considered separate categories of dependent measures in neuroimaging.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The subheading has now been changed to say “literature reporting changes in brain structure and function” (line 167). Literature reporting changes in gray and white matter has now been moved to the changes in brain structure and function section (line 211).

Reviewer #2, comment 3: “Myalgic encephalomyelitis” should be listed among the search terms, as should MECFS, ME/CFS, CFSME, and other iterations. “Magnetic resonance spectroscopy” and related iterations should also be included.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic is the mesh term and with it contains all associated search terms including Myalgic encephalomyelitis (S2 contains the full search term code). ME/CFS and other abbreviations have been omitted as myalgic encephalomyelitis/ Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are not accepted abbreviations and will always be introduced in its full form in the title and abstract. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy has been added as a search term. This has added seven studies that were previously not included: Chaudhuri, 2003; Mathew, 2009; Mueller, 2019; Murrough, 2010; Puri 2002; Shan, 2018A; Van der Schaaf, 2018.

Reviewer #2, comment 4: The current draft reads like a review of neuroimaging studies - a very valuable resource - but not a review cognitive studies. Given that the focus is on neuroimaging per se and not cognitive dysfunction, “Cognitive” should probably not be in the title: for example, Gotts et al (2015) PLoS ONE is a study of sleep and cognition - two topics that are covered in this review. But it is not referenced or discussed in the current review because it was not a neuroimaging study. “A systematic review of neuroimaging….” may be an example of better phrasing for the title. If there is to be a focus on cognition per se, even outside of the scanner, then there should be an approach more like Cvejic et al. (2016), including search terms related to cognitive testing.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The focus of this review is neurological changes as measured by neuroimaging techniques. Cognitive changes has been removed from the title and it now reads as: A Systematic Review of Neurological impairments in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/ Chronic Fatigue Syndrome using neuroimaging techniques.

Reviewer #2, comment 5: The paper 'Costa et al (1995) Brainstem perfusion...' appears to have been missed; it used “SPET” single photon emission tomography, this may have been missed by using the more specific and constrained search of “tomography, emission-computed, single-photon” - perhaps simply using “tomography” would be more inclusive and it would also catch PET studies.

Authors Response: Considered and unmodified in the manuscript.

Costa et al (1995) was identified in the search, however, was later excluded since using an alternative criterion than those mentioned in our inclusion/exclusion criteria (Oxford). The paper also included participants under the age of 18.

Reviewer #2, comment 6: We suggest that the authors include “magnetic resonance spectroscopy” in the search terms to make the study list more inclusive. For example, Murrough et al. (2010), NMR in Biomedicine, Mathew et al. (2008), NMR in Biomedicine. From the 10 spectroscopy papers listed in VanElzakker, Brumfield, & Mejia 2019, only 2 were included in the current review. There have been a handful of neuroimaging reviews that could also be a source for appropriate papers, by looking through references:

Morris, Berk & Puri (2018); VanElzakker, Brumfield, & Mejia 2019;

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. As mentioned previously, magnetic resonance spectrometry has been added as a search term: this has allowed the inclusion of additional papers including Murrough et al. (2010). The reference was checked and all mentioned references were identified in the search but were later excluded on the basis of inclusion/ exclusion criteria. Yoshiuchi (2006) and Lange (2001): separated the ME/CFS patients based on having a diagnosis of depression when that is an exclusion criterion for diagnosis. Costa (1995) was excluded due to the inclusion of the paediatric population. Peterson (1994) and Ichise (1992) were published prior to the establishment of the Fukuda criteria (1994). Brooks (2000) and Tamada (2000) used an alternative Holmes (1988) criteria.

Reviewer #2, comment 7: We were surprised that a vast majority of studies were based on Fukuda criteria. One key problem with the Fukuda definition is that it likely includes individuals who deal with fatigue but do not share the same pathophysiology as ‘true’ ME/CFS. Inclusion of “Infectious Onset” as a ME/CFS cohort descriptor would be particularly helpful, if this is not possible it should be described as a limitation.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. ‘infectious onset’ information was not available in the studies. A statement in the discussion section has been added to address this: due to this potential overlap, the inclusion of additional patient characteristic information such as infection onset is also an important consideration for future studies (line 417).

Reviewer #2, comment 8: Line 68: Please correct this numbering for the supplementary material (listed as S1 but is actually S2). This problem occurs throughout the paper. Please address all mentions of supplementary materials.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. All supplementary material has been correctly numbered in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2, comment 9: Line 85: IOM criteria not listed here; given its prominence, if this was deliberate it should be stated explicitly. This is especially salient given the preponderance of Fukuda papers referenced.

Authors Response: Considered and partially modified in the manuscript. No articles identified in this search used the IOM criteria. The IOM criteria in research hasn’t been as well established as the other criterions in research. The main text has been edited to include a statement that IOM is part of the inclusion criteria “diagnosis of ME/CFS used the following case criteria: Fukuda (1994), CCC (2003), or ICC (2011) or the Institute of Medicine (IOM) diagnostic criteria (2015)” but no studies used this criteria, this was also explicitly stated in the manuscript “No papers utilised the IOM diagnostic criteria (line 135).”

Reviewer #2, comment 10: The authors describe that this manuscript intended to review and survey studies comparing ME/CFS to healthy controls, but it appears that some papers which make such a comparison were not included simply because they also made other comparisons. There are some examples of papers that have more than two groups - for example, Natelson et al (2017), Fatigue Biomedicine Health & Behavior 5(1). Given that there was a comparison between ME/CFS and healthy controls in that paper, it should probably be included (and the comparison to fibromyalgia can be ignored, in accordance with the self-imposed criteria for the current review). Other examples of this should be looked for.

Authors Response: Considered and unmodified in the manuscript. Selected papers that were not included such as Natelson et al (2017) were excluded for other reasons such as not including an age descriptor. Murrough et al (2010) was included as it complied with all inclusion criteria.

Reviewer #2, comment 11: Please explain the reasoning for excluding sleep intervention studies. Was it all intervention studies that appeared in your search that you excluded or solely the sleep intervention studies? Please explain if this distinction was made and why. Was the exclusion only for studies that attempted to alter or influence sleep?

Authors Response: Considered and partially modified in the manuscript. All intervention studies were excluded from the review. There are several articles that describe the influence intervention regimes have on neuroimaging findings in ME/CFS patients compared to HCs that justifies its own investigation and was beyond the intended focus of this review. Initially, Perrin et al. 2010 that involved a selected group receiving osteopathic treatment and another group receiving any treatment of their choice was initially included in the study. This study has now been removed from the analysis.

Reviewer #2, comment 12: Line 113: the PubMed search term list was unusually short compared to the others, please explain.

Authors Response: Considered and unmodified in the manuscript. PubMed has a mesh database that allows expansion of search terms to include all related variants of the term. The other databases did not have this option, so the code was adjusted to include all the additional search terms that PubMed’s mesh database captures.

Reviewer #2, comment 13: Line 128, did any studies report race or ethnicity?

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. A description on studies which reported race or ethnicity has now been provided. This statement reads as: There were only 10 studies which reported race, where majority of the participants were Caucasian (line 128).

Reviewer #2, comment 14: Line 136, in general, sentences should not begin with numerals (see elsewhere as well, e.g., Line 121) - a minor formatting issue throughout that should be edited. Line 328 vs line 329, “Table” and “Figure” should have consistent capitalization throughout.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The whole manuscript has been checked for sentences that begin with numbers and has been adjusted. The figures also now have consistent capitalisation throughout the text. To comply with PLOS ONE formatting, tables have changed to supporting information and have been relabelled accordingly.

Reviewer #2, comment 15: We believe the authors meant “spectroscopy” - this is technically an fMRI technique (functional). In general, neuroimaging studies are usually described according to a distinction between functional and structural; this distinction could be made clear throughout the paper.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The line has been adjusted to say spectroscopy (line 152).

Reviewer #2, comment 16: Line 147 describes MRS and finding a difference in rCBF, but this is not something that MRS can do. We believe the authors intended to describe the ASL technique’s finding. In general, there were several instances in which more than one technique was used (MRI machines can of course do multiple methods of structure and function) and a result was described according to a different method. ASL is usually considered a form of fMRI (it describes function, not structure).

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The line stating that MRS was used to measure rCBF has been adjusted to say ASL. The complete main text has been cross-checked to ensure that the correct technique is being described (line 161). The tables have also been adjusted to include all techniques.

Reviewer #2, comment 17: Line 163: Did the authors intend to write “intercranial compliance” ? In general, this is an example of a finding that would benefit from even a brief interpretation or explanation.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. “Intercranial compliance” has been adjusted to “intracranial compliance”. The equation of intracranial compliance has been provided to add context: “Severity of OI symptoms were associated with lower intracranial compliance (change in volume per unit change in pressure)” (line 164).

Reviewer #2, comment 18: Line 187 - (organisation) hippocampus function is listed in a section on brain structure, and EEG findings are not listed in the section on electrical activity.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The brain structure and function section has now been merged (line 167). The EEG findings have been included in the section on electrical activity, it reads as: a twin study that used EEG Low-resolution electromagnetic tomography analysis (LORETA) found that there was significantly higher delta power in the left uncus and parahippocampal gyrus and higher theta power in the cingulate cortex and right superior frontal gyrus in the ME/CFS monozygotic twin compared with the healthy twin (line 262).

Reviewer #2, comment 19: Line 189 - no comma after “Significantly”

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The comma has been removed.

Reviewer #2, comment 20: Line 200 - It is true that myelin levels may be associated with T1 signal; however, studies examining myelin usually use a T1/T2 ratio and not simply T1 signal, which is much harder to interpret. It should be made clear that “myelin levels” is an interpretation of a finding as opposed to an empirical finding (elsewhere in the paper as well). Relatedly, Line 203 should explicitly state what variables were correlated, and take care to describe the difference between the reported statistical finding and its proposed interpretation.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. Emphasis on the difference between interpretations and empirical findings were made throughout the text and all interpretations have been removed from the results section.

Reviewer #2, comment 21: Line 207 - the word “study” should follow “DTI”, line 208 the term FA appears unnecessarily; the word “arcuate” is misspelled

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. This paragraph was removed from the paper.

Reviewer #2, comment 22: Line 213-220 - terms like “decrease” used as a verb sounds like longitudinal study findings; this wording should be clarified in case-control comparisons that cannot delineate a pre-existing risk factor from a disease process (i.e., smaller volumes may be the cause or may be the effect of a disease)

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The use of the term “decrease” has been switched in case-control comparisons to words such as “less” to differentiate between longitudinal studies throughout the whole manuscript.

Reviewer #2, comment 23: Line 257 - Another example of a reported finding that would benefit from even a small amount of explanation, example wording could be something like “small worldness, or propensity for local functional connectivity over long-range functional connectivity...” Line 264, Citation 46 - this is another example of why contextualization is important: the “inhibitory state” was an interpretation of results in a study comparing 24 patients to 23 controls, and was not an empirical finding. Again, the sleep & electrical sections could benefit from a small overall summary so that it is not simply a list of papers.

Authors Response: Considered and partially modified in the manuscript. An explanation of small worldness has been provided: In another investigation small worldness, defined by the level of integration and clustering of networks, in the delta band was found to be significantly lower in ME/CFS patients compared with HCs (line 268). The sentence regarding inhibitory state has been removed. It is difficult to compose an overall comparison because there is minimal overlap between the studies conducted and the methodologies used.

Reviewer #2, comment 24: Line 291 - patients had or patients exhibited; not patients reported

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The text has been adjusted to “patients exhibited” instead of patients reported.

Reviewer #2, comment 25: Line 302 unclear wording, line 309 unclear wording; but more importantly: line 302 vs line 308 different auditory tasks appear to have a positive vs a null finding. Are the two studies comparable? Are they inconsistent? Is there a possible conceptual or mechanistic reason for why these two studies seemed to find different things? An example where contextualization would be helpful.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2, comment 26: Line 312 - dACC is usually not referred to as a nucleus

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. “Dorsal anterior cingulate nucleus” was adjusted to say “dorsal anterior cingulate cortex” instead (line 177).

Reviewer #2, comment 27: Line 333 - briefly define ‘role function’ - also wording in 353 - 356, explain ‘exposure period was sufficient to’

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. Literature was searched on role function; however, a definition of the term has not been provided. Due to this, this was removed from the manuscript. “Exposure period was sufficient to” was changed to “the exposure period was sufficient to show an effect” to provide more context (line 371).

Reviewer #2, comment 28: Line 337 - Organisation: Quality assessment seems more like a “Methods” topic, used in the initial selection of papers. In general, one cannot read this section and understand what the authors did - if these methods are truly central to paper quality assessment, this table should either be moved from supplemental into the main paper, or the text should be much more descriptive and not rely upon flipping back and forth between the text and the table to understand what is being described. Line 523 begins a clearer description of what seems to be described in 337.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. Greater description has now been provided in the methods section: Each checklist item assesses the following: (1) group matching, (2) source population, (3) criteria, (4) method of exposure, (5) assessment of exposure, (6) identification of confounding variables, (7) management of confounding variables, (8) measurement of outcomes, (9) exposure period selection, (10) statistical analysis (line 111). Details of the methodology has also been removed from the discussion section. Upon consultation of guidelines and correspondence with a PLOS ONE editorial team member (31st March correspondence) the quality assessment table is required to be presented as supporting information and can’t be moved to the main text.

Reviewer #2, comment 29: Line 431, references should follow each statement separately - in other words, studies that reported white matter hyperintensities should follow “WM hyperintensities” - white matter atrophy and white matter volume are synonymous, but references supporting this statement should follow that statement specifically.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The references have been adjusted accordingly.

Reviewer #2, comment 30: Line 432 - “not of pathological significance” is an interpretation. Line 438 “established” is too strong; the author is making an argument based upon interpretation of data (this also directly contradicts line 482); 444 - “upregulation of myelin” is an interpretation and not an empirical finding.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The statement “not of pathological significance” has been removed. Established has been adjusted to proposed. The statement on the upregulation of myelin has been framed to show it is an interpretation and not an empirical finding: It was suggested that this may be due to an upregulation of myelin in the sensorimotor cortex which was a potential compensatory mechanism to maintain brainstem-sensorimotor connectivity (line 456).

Reviewer #2, comment 31: Line 486 - define ICN, and please make sure all other acronyms are defined

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. ICN was only mentioned once and did not need to be abbreviated it is presented in full form (line 492). The manuscript has been thoroughly checked to ensure all acronyms have been defined.

Reviewer #2, comment 32: Line 487 - This sentence fragment seems like evidence that the paper was not proofread by all authors. Please assure that all authors have read and edited the paper before resubmission.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The sentence fragment has been corrected. The paper has been read and edited by all authors.

Reviewer #2, comment 33: Line 492 - hippocampus is itself a limbic structure. Was 'hippocampus' and 'hypothalamus' again switched? One does not normally think of hippocampus as central to arousal.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The author was referring to hippocampus, however, this sentence has now been removed from the manuscript.

Reviewer #2, comment 34: Line 518 - “compensation” is an example of an interpretation or theory, not an empirical finding, and should be framed as such.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. This statement has been rephrased to frame it as an interpretation or theory not an empirical finding: Increases in FC in patient groups in response to disrupted FC elsewhere is another possible example of compensation (line 516).

Reviewer #2, comment 35: Table: For the table, the term USA is more appropriate, because Brazil is in “America” but this does not seem like important information when judging the quality and findings of studies. Perhaps a “Method of analysis” column has room for more information, for example it could include the Tesla strength of MRI. The “sample type” column did not seem important given that all entries said “CFS/ME.” The table also lists all studies as “prospective” but we believe this may be a misapplication of the term, which would mean that subjects were scanned before they developed the disease (see also Line 122, 123, 124). http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/EP/EP713_AnalyticOverview/EP713_AnalyticOverview3.html

It is again important that senior authors carefully read the entire paper.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. The country of origin of the study section on the table has been removed as It is not important information to deduce quality and findings of the studies. The sample type column has also been removed. The tesla strength of MRI has been added to the method of analysis section. The word “prospective” was removed from the study design section.

Reviewer #3:

Reviewer #3, comment 1: Why was Fukuda the primary chosen criteria? As the authors have rightly pointed out, it is too broad according to the majority of researchers and clinicians.

Authors Response: Considered and partially modified in the manuscript. Fukuda was initially the internationally recognised case definition for ME/CFS therefore a large proportion of studies were based on this criterion. The CCC is now the internationally recognised case definition and there may be a shift in publications with more articles relying on this definition in the future.

Reviewer #3, comment 2: Are there no articles available using some of the more restrictive criteria (IOM for example?) that the authors could have used?

Authors Response: Considered and unmodified in the manuscript. Four different databases were searched and out of all the included papers none used the more restrictive criteria such as the ICC or IOM.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Marcello Moccia

8 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-34471R1

A systematic review of neurological impairments in myalgic encephalomyelitis/ Chronic Fatigue Syndrome using neuroimaging techniques.

PLOS ONE

Dear Miss Maksoud,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

I would recommend authors carefully explain their inclusion criteria. In particular, authors should discuss how the application of different inclusion criteria could have affected their findings.

​==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 23 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcello Moccia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I would recommend authors carefully explain their inclusion criteria. In particular, authors should discuss how the application of different inclusion criteria could have affected their findings.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This reviewer highly values the authors's efforts to modify the manuscript.

There is one point which are not completely satisfied.

The authors wrote to comment 1: "Kimura et al, was excluded during the

abstract/ title screening process as it did not contain any of the listed key words. "

This is not wrong, however, because this paper seems to be within the scope of this manuscript with regards to its content, the reviewer is still not completely convinced why this paper is excluded from this review. Please explain this point.

Reviewer #3: Fukuda criteria is way too broad, and such a review should have addressed some articles with more restrictive criteria. There is a strong lack of consensus among researchers and clinicians on it's reliability as far as specificity is concerned.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 30;15(4):e0232475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232475.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Apr 2020

Reviewer #1, comment 1: The authors wrote to comment 1: "Kimura et al, was excluded during the abstract/ title screening process as it did not contain any of the listed key words. "

This is not wrong, however, because this paper seems to be within the scope of this manuscript with regards to its content, the reviewer is still not completely convinced why this paper is excluded from this review. Please explain this point.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. Our systematic review utilised standardised and internationally accepted PRISMA and Cochrane review guidelines (https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04#section-4-4). This approach limits the introduction of bias from self-selection of papers. The inclusion of Kimura et al although within the scope of our review would be introducing a paper outside the set international guidelines and stringent inclusion criteria and may be a source of potential selection bias. The discussion has been modified to include descriptions of the paper’s findings (line 494).

Reviewer #3:

Reviewer #3, comment 1: Reviewer #3: Fukuda criteria is way too broad, and such a review should have addressed some articles with more restrictive criteria. There is a strong lack of consensus among researchers and clinicians on it's reliability as far as specificity is concerned.

Authors Response: Considered and modified in the manuscript. A statement in the discussion was provided regarding the limitation of including the Fukuda criteria in our search strategy: “Inclusion of the Fukuda criteria was a limitation of our search strategy, however, due to this criteria being still abundantly used in research and clinical practice, limiting our search to not include papers that relied on the Fukuda criteria would drastically reduce the availability of appropriate papers in this field.” (line 423)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Marcello Moccia

16 Apr 2020

A systematic review of neurological impairments in myalgic encephalomyelitis/ Chronic Fatigue Syndrome using neuroimaging techniques.

PONE-D-19-34471R2

Dear Dr. Maksoud,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Marcello Moccia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I wish to congratulate the authors for their manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Marcello Moccia

22 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-34471R2

A systematic review of neurological impairments in myalgic encephalomyelitis/ Chronic Fatigue Syndrome using neuroimaging techniques.

Dear Dr. Maksoud:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Marcello Moccia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

    (DOC)

    S2 File. Extended search term code.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Summary of study characteristics table.

    (DOCX)

    S4 File. Summary of participant characteristics table.

    (DOCX)

    S5 File. Summary of primary outcome results table.

    (DOCX)

    S6 File. Secondary outcome measures table.

    (DOCX)

    S7 File. JBI quality assessment table and descriptions.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES