Table 1.
Values reported as mean ± standard deviation.
Fig 1.
Anatomical localization of significant differences in DTI and TDI measurements between UCPPS patients (N = 45) and HCs (N = 56).
A) Observed differences in mean diffusivity (MD). B) Observed differences in fractional anisotropy (FA). C) Observed differences in fiber track density. D) Observed differences in generalized anisotropy (GA). Significant clusters were determined by thresholding based on level of statistical significance (P < 0.05) and cluster-based corrections using random permutation analysis. Left column illustrates differences projected onto representative white matter fiber tracts.
Table 2.
Anatomical regions and corresponding cluster volumes showing significant differences in MD between UCPPS patients and HCs (HCs).
Minimum cluster size = 171 uL from permutation analysis.
Table 3.
Anatomical regions and corresponding cluster volumes showing significant differences in FA between UCPPS patients and HCs (HCs).
Minimum cluster size = 111 uL from permutation analysis.
Table 4.
Anatomical regions and corresponding cluster volumes showing significant differences in fiber track density on TDI between UCPPS patients and HCs (HCs).
Minimum cluster size = 111 uL from permutation analysis.
Table 5.
Anatomical regions and corresponding cluster volumes showing significant differences in GA between UCPPS patients and HCs (HCs).
Minimum cluster size = 117 uL from permutation analysis.
Fig 2.
Anatomical localization of significant differences in DTI and TDI measurements between UCPPS patients (N = 45) and positive control patients with IBS (N = 39).
A) Observed differences in mean diffusivity (MD). B) Observed differences in fractional anisotropy (FA). C) Observed differences in fiber track density. D) Observed differences in generalized anisotropy (GA). Significant clusters were determined by thresholding based on level of statistical significance (P < 0.05) and cluster-based corrections using random permutation analysis. Left column illustrates differences projected onto representative white matter fiber tracts.
Fig 3.
Combined anatomical localization of significant differences in generalized anisotropy (GA) between UCPPS patients and both HCs and IBS patients in primary somatosensory tracts.
A) Coronal and B) sagittal views of fiber tracts showing increased GA in regions adjacent to pelvic representation (“a”), decreased GA in the splenium of the corpus callosum (“b”), and decreased GA near the ventral nuclei of the thalamus (“c”) in UCPPS patients compared to healthy controls (HCs). C) Coronal and D) sagittal views of fiber tracts showing increased GA in regions adjacent to pelvic representation (“a”), decreased GA in the splenium of the corpus callosum (“b”), and inreased GA near the ventral nuclei of the thalamus (“c*”) in UCPPS patients compared to IBS patients.
Fig 4.
Sex differences in mean diffusivity (MD) within A) UCPPS patients, B) positive control patients with IBS, and C) healthy control (HC) participants.
Significant clusters were determined by thresholding based on level of statistical significance (P < 0.05) and cluster-based corrections using random permutation analysis.
Fig 5.
Sex differences in fractional anisotropy (FA) within A) UCPPS patients, B) positive control patients with IBS, and C) healthy control (HC) participants.
Significant clusters were determined by thresholding based on level of statistical significance (P < 0.05) and cluster-based corrections using random permutation analysis.
Fig 6.
Sex differences in fiber track density within A) UCPPS patients, B) positive control patients with IBS, and C) healthy control (HC) participants.
Significant clusters were determined by thresholding based on level of statistical significance (P < 0.05) and cluster-based corrections using random permutation analysis.
Fig 7.
Sex differences in generalized anisotropy (GA) within A) UCPPS patients, B) positive control patients with IBS, and C) healthy control (HC) participants.
Significant clusters were determined by thresholding based on level of statistical significance (P < 0.05) and cluster-based corrections using random permutation analysis.
Fig 8.
Correlation matrix between mean MD measurements and MAPP symptom scores in UCPPS patients, localized to ROIs identified as different between UCPPS and HCs on statistical parameter maps.
Dendrograms on the left side of the correlation matrix show hierarchical clustering of ROIs based on the association between MD measurements and symptom scores. Images showing ROI localization are chosen for select associations. Up arrows within cells denote significantly positive correlations (P<0.05) and down arrows within cells denote significantly negative correlations (P<0.05). (Note the level of significance was not corrected for multiple comparisons in this exploratory analysis).
Fig 9.
Correlation matrix between mean FA measurements and MAPP symptom scores in UCPPS patients, localized to ROIs identified as different between UCPPS and HCs on statistical parameter maps.
Dendrograms on the left side of the correlation matrix show hierarchical clustering of ROIs based on the association between FA measurements and symptom scores. Images showing ROI localization are chosen for select associations. Up arrows within cells denote significantly positive correlations (P<0.05) and down arrows within cells denote significantly negative correlations (P<0.05). (Note the level of significance was not corrected for multiple comparisons in this exploratory analysis).
Fig 10.
Correlation matrix between mean track density measurements and MAPP symptom scores in UCPPS patients, localized to ROIs identified as different between UCPPS and HCs on statistical parameter maps.
Dendrograms on the left side of the correlation matrix show hierarchical clustering of ROIs based on the association between track density measurements and symptom scores. Images showing ROI localization are chosen for select associations. Up arrows within cells denote significantly positive correlations (P<0.05) and down arrows within cells denote significantly negative correlations (P<0.05). (Note the level of significance was not corrected for multiple comparisons in this exploratory analysis).
Fig 11.
Correlation matrix between mean GA measurements and MAPP symptom scores in UCPPS patients, localized to ROIs identified as different between UCPPS and HCs on statistical parameter maps.
Dendrograms on the left side of the correlation matrix show hierarchical clustering of ROIs based on the association between GA measurements and symptom scores. Images showing ROI localization are chosen for select associations. Up arrows within cells denote significantly positive correlations (P<0.05) and down arrows within cells denote significantly negative correlations (P<0.05). (Note the level of significance was not corrected for multiple comparisons in this exploratory analysis).