Topological network analysis of patient similarity for precision management of acute blood pressure in spinal cord injury

  1. Abel Torres-Espín
  2. Jenny Haefeli
  3. Reza Ehsanian
  4. Dolores Torres
  5. Carlos A Almeida
  6. J Russell Huie
  7. Austin Chou
  8. Dmitriy Morozov
  9. Nicole Sanderson
  10. Benjamin Dirlikov
  11. Catherine G Suen
  12. Jessica L Nielson
  13. Nikos Kyritsis
  14. Debra D Hemmerle
  15. Jason F Talbott
  16. Geoff T Manley
  17. Sanjay S Dhall
  18. William D Whetstone
  19. Jacqueline C Bresnahan
  20. Michael S Beattie
  21. Stephen L McKenna
  22. Jonathan Z Pan  Is a corresponding author
  23. Adam R Ferguson  Is a corresponding author
  24. The TRACK-SCI Investigators
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. University of New Mexico School of Medicine, United States
  3. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States
  4. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, United States
  5. University of Minnesota, United States

Abstract

Background: Predicting neurological recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI) is challenging. Using topological data analysis, we have previously shown that mean arterial pressure (MAP) during SCI surgery predicts long-term functional recovery in rodent models, motivating the present multicenter study in patients.

Methods: Intra-operative monitoring records and neurological outcome data were extracted (n=118 patients). We built a similarity network of patients from a low-dimensional space embedded using a non-linear algorithm, Isomap, and ensured topological extraction using persistent homology metrics. Confirmatory analysis was conducted through regression methods.

Results: Network analysis suggested that time outside of an optimum MAP range (hypotension or hypertension) during surgery was associated with lower likelihood of neurological recovery at hospital discharge. Logistic and LASSO regression confirmed these findings, revealing an optimal MAP range of 76-[104-117] mmHg associated with neurological recovery.

Conclusion: We show that deviation from this optimal MAP range during SCI surgery predicts lower probability of neurological recovery and suggest new targets for therapeutic intervention.

Funding: NIH/NINDS: R01NS088475 (ARF); R01NS122888 (ARF); UH3NS106899 (ARF); Department of Veterans Affairs: 1I01RX002245 (ARF), I01RX002787 (ARF); Wings for Life Foundation (ARF)(ATE); Craig H. Neilsen Foundation (ARF); and DOD: SC150198 (MSB); SC190233 (MSB).

Data availability

Source data has been deposited to the Open Data Commons for Spinal Cord Injury (odc-sci.org; RRID:SCR_016673) under the accession number ODC-SCI:245 (doi: 10.34945/F5R59) and ODC-SCI:246 (doi: 10.34945/F5MG68)

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Abel Torres-Espín

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jenny Haefeli

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Reza Ehsanian

    Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque,, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dolores Torres

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Carlos A Almeida

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. J Russell Huie

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Austin Chou

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Dmitriy Morozov

    Computational Research Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Nicole Sanderson

    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Benjamin Dirlikov

    Rehabilitation Research Center, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Catherine G Suen

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jessica L Nielson

    Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Nikos Kyritsis

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7801-5796
  14. Debra D Hemmerle

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2796-6107
  15. Jason F Talbott

    Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francsico, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Geoff T Manley

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Sanjay S Dhall

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. William D Whetstone

    Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Jacqueline C Bresnahan

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Michael S Beattie

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Stephen L McKenna

    Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Jonathan Z Pan

    Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    jonathan.pan@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. Adam R Ferguson

    Weill Institute for Neurosciences; Brain and Spinal Injury Center (BASIC), Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    adam.ferguson@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7102-1608
  24. The TRACK-SCI Investigators

Funding

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS088475)

  • Adam R Ferguson

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (UG3NS106899)

  • Adam R Ferguson

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (1I01RX002245)

  • Adam R Ferguson

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01RX002787)

  • Adam R Ferguson

Wings for Life Foundation

  • Abel Torres Espín

Wings for Life Foundation

  • Adam R Ferguson

Craig H. Neilsen Foundation

  • Adam R Ferguson

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: This study constitutes a retrospective data analysis. All data was de-identified before pre-processing and analysis. Protocols for retrospective data extraction were approved by Institutional Research Board (IRB) under protocol numbers 11-07639 and 11-06997.

Copyright

© 2021, Torres Espín et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,826
    views
  • 267
    downloads
  • 19
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Abel Torres-Espín
  2. Jenny Haefeli
  3. Reza Ehsanian
  4. Dolores Torres
  5. Carlos A Almeida
  6. J Russell Huie
  7. Austin Chou
  8. Dmitriy Morozov
  9. Nicole Sanderson
  10. Benjamin Dirlikov
  11. Catherine G Suen
  12. Jessica L Nielson
  13. Nikos Kyritsis
  14. Debra D Hemmerle
  15. Jason F Talbott
  16. Geoff T Manley
  17. Sanjay S Dhall
  18. William D Whetstone
  19. Jacqueline C Bresnahan
  20. Michael S Beattie
  21. Stephen L McKenna
  22. Jonathan Z Pan
  23. Adam R Ferguson
  24. The TRACK-SCI Investigators
(2021)
Topological network analysis of patient similarity for precision management of acute blood pressure in spinal cord injury
eLife 10:e68015.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.68015

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.68015

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    Matthew Millard, David W Franklin, Walter Herzog
    Research Article

    The force developed by actively lengthened muscle depends on different structures across different scales of lengthening. For small perturbations, the active response of muscle is well captured by a linear-time-invariant (LTI) system: a stiff spring in parallel with a light damper. The force response of muscle to longer stretches is better represented by a compliant spring that can fix its end when activated. Experimental work has shown that the stiffness and damping (impedance) of muscle in response to small perturbations is of fundamental importance to motor learning and mechanical stability, while the huge forces developed during long active stretches are critical for simulating and predicting injury. Outside of motor learning and injury, muscle is actively lengthened as a part of nearly all terrestrial locomotion. Despite the functional importance of impedance and active lengthening, no single muscle model has all these mechanical properties. In this work, we present the viscoelastic-crossbridge active-titin (VEXAT) model that can replicate the response of muscle to length changes great and small. To evaluate the VEXAT model, we compare its response to biological muscle by simulating experiments that measure the impedance of muscle, and the forces developed during long active stretches. In addition, we have also compared the responses of the VEXAT model to a popular Hill-type muscle model. The VEXAT model more accurately captures the impedance of biological muscle and its responses to long active stretches than a Hill-type model and can still reproduce the force-velocity and force-length relations of muscle. While the comparison between the VEXAT model and biological muscle is favorable, there are some phenomena that can be improved: the low frequency phase response of the model, and a mechanism to support passive force enhancement.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Kara Schmidlin, Sam Apodaca ... Kerry Geiler-Samerotte
    Research Article

    There is growing interest in designing multidrug therapies that leverage tradeoffs to combat resistance. Tradeoffs are common in evolution and occur when, for example, resistance to one drug results in sensitivity to another. Major questions remain about the extent to which tradeoffs are reliable, specifically, whether the mutants that provide resistance to a given drug all suffer similar tradeoffs. This question is difficult because the drug-resistant mutants observed in the clinic, and even those evolved in controlled laboratory settings, are often biased towards those that provide large fitness benefits. Thus, the mutations (and mechanisms) that provide drug resistance may be more diverse than current data suggests. Here, we perform evolution experiments utilizing lineage-tracking to capture a fuller spectrum of mutations that give yeast cells a fitness advantage in fluconazole, a common antifungal drug. We then quantify fitness tradeoffs for each of 774 evolved mutants across 12 environments, finding these mutants group into classes with characteristically different tradeoffs. Their unique tradeoffs may imply that each group of mutants affects fitness through different underlying mechanisms. Some of the groupings we find are surprising. For example, we find some mutants that resist single drugs do not resist their combination, while others do. And some mutants to the same gene have different tradeoffs than others. These findings, on one hand, demonstrate the difficulty in relying on consistent or intuitive tradeoffs when designing multidrug treatments. On the other hand, by demonstrating that hundreds of adaptive mutations can be reduced to a few groups with characteristic tradeoffs, our findings may yet empower multidrug strategies that leverage tradeoffs to combat resistance. More generally speaking, by grouping mutants that likely affect fitness through similar underlying mechanisms, our work guides efforts to map the phenotypic effects of mutation.