Table 2.
Baseline reconfiguration dynamics
| Mean (±SD) | Main: group | CI versus CP | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HC (N = 59) | CP (N = 134) | MCI (N = 42) | CI (N = 54) | F | P-value | β (95% CI) | P-value | |
| Global effects | ||||||||
| Promiscuity | 0.00 (±0.52) | −0.16 (±0.59) | −0.01 (±0.60) | 0.14 (±0.71) | 2.67 | 0.096 | 0.26 (0.07, 0.46) | 0.008 |
| Flexibility | 0.00 (±0.48) | −0.15 (±0.52) | −0.02 (±0.57) | 0.17 (±0.65) | 3.72 | 0.024 | 0.29 (0.11, 0.46) | 0.001 |
| Flexibility type | ||||||||
| Cohesion | 0.00 (±0.55) | −0.18 (±0.58) | −0.05 (±0.63) | 0.18 (±0.73) | 3.70 | 0.024 | 0.32 (0.12, 0.51) | 0.001 |
| Disjointedness | 0.00 (±0.29) | 0.02 (±0.30) | 0.13 (±0.30) | 0.08 (±0.30) | 1.60 | 0.378 | 0.05 (−0.05, 0.14) | 0.334 |
| Network effects | ||||||||
| Cohesion | ||||||||
| DAN | 0.00 (±1.00) | −0.35 (±1.03) | −0.24 (±0.78) | 0.11 (±1.16) | 2.80 | 0.280 | 0.42 (0.09, 0.75) | 0.014 |
| DMN | 0.00 (±1.00) | −0.13 (±0.95) | −0.13 (±0.86) | 0.20 (±1.16) | 1.19 | 1.000 | 0.28 (−0.04, 0.60) | 0.084 |
| FPN | 0.00 (±1.00) | −0.50 (±0.99) | −0.27 (±1.01) | −0.10 (±1.12) | 3.69 | 0.084 | 0.39 (0.06, 0.720) | 0.021 |
| SMN | 0.00 (±1.00) | −0.07 (±0.89) | 0.10 (±0.81) | 0.12 (±0.78) | 0.60 | 1.000 | 0.15 (−0.13, 0.43) | 0.283 |
| DGM | 0.00 (±1.00) | −0.09 (±1.12) | −0.04 (±1.21) | 0.16 (±1.13) | 0.27 | 1.000 | 0.15 (−0.21, 0.51) | 0.408 |
| VAN | 0.00 (±1.00) | −0.39 (±0.97) | −0.24 (±1.20) | 0.07 (±1.09) | 2.90 | 0.245 | 0.43 (0.09, 0.76) | 0.013 |
| Visual | 0.00 (±1.00) | 0.26 (±1.24) | 0.48 (±1.22) | 0.72 (±1.29) | 3.05 | 0.203 | 0.42 (0.03, 0.81) | 0.037 |
Note. Global flexibility differed between groups at baseline. When further scrutinizing the types of flexible switches, group differences were solely found for cohesion (i.e. mutual switches) and not disjointedness (independent switches). Most notably, CI patients showed greater global reconfiguration dynamics compared with CP patients, with HCs and MCI patients showing intermediate dynamics. Reconfiguration dynamics did not seem to be specific to a particular network. The z-scores were based on the distribution of HCs within each networks and global dynamics represented the average over all networks. The reported P-values for the main group effects were corrected for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction and P-values below 0.05 after correction were depicted in bold. Subnetworks: DAN, DMN, FPN, SMN, deep grey matter, VAN and visual network.