Cited by 70Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Fatigue in multiple sclerosis is associated with multimodal interoceptive abnormalities

Open access
Gonzalez Campo, Cecilia, Salamone, Paula C, Rodríguez-Arriagada, Nicolás, Richter, Fabian, Herrera, Eduar, Bruno, Diana, Pagani Cassara, Fátima, Sinay, Vladimiro +3 more·2020·Multiple Sclerosis Journal

Abstract

Background: Fatigue ranks among the most common and disabling symptoms in multiple sclerosis (MS). Recent theoretical works have surmised that this trait might be related to alterations across interoceptive mechanisms. However, this hypothesis has not been empirically evaluated. Objectives: To determine whether fatigue in MS patients is associated with specific behavioral, structural, and functional disruptions of the interoceptive domain. Methods: Fatigue levels were established via the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale. Interoception was evaluated through a robust measure indexed by the heartbeat detection task. Structural and functional connectivity properties of key interoceptive hubs were tested by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and resting-state functional MRI. Machine learning analyses were employed to perform pairwise classifications. Results: Only patients with fatigue presented with decreased interoceptive accuracy alongside decreased gray matter volume and increased functional connectivity in core interoceptive regions, the insula, and the anterior cingulate cortex. Each of these alterations was positively associated with fatigue. Finally, machine-learning analysis with a combination of the above interoceptive indices (behavioral, structural, and functional) successfully discriminated (area under the curve > 90%) fatigued patients from both non-fatigued and healthy controls. Conclusion: This study offers unprecedented evidence suggesting that disruptions of neurocognitive markers subserving interoception may constitute a signature of fatigue in MS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1352458519888881

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gonzalez Campo, C., Salamone, P. C., Rodríguez-Arriagada, N., Richter, F., Herrera, E., Bruno, D., Pagani Cassara, F., Sinay, V., García, A. M., Ibáñez, A., & Sedeño, L.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Translational and Cognitive Neuroscience (INCyT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos Aires, Argentina/Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience (LPEN), Institute of Translational and Cognitive Neuroscience (INCyT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos Aires, Argentina/National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience (LPEN), Institute of Translational and Cognitive Neuroscience (INCyT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • Universidad Icesi (CO)
  • Favaloro University (AR)
  • Institute of Translational and Cognitive Neuroscience (INCyT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro University, Buenos Aires, Argentina/Instituto de Neurociencias de Fundación Favaloro, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Corresponding author
Sedeño, Lucas
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
Published
2019-11-28
Volume
26
Issue
14
Pages
1845-1853
ISSN
  • 1352-4585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0970
OpenAlex
W2990667840
Cited by
70
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Multiple Sclerosis Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • consejo nacional de investigaciones científicas y técnicas
  • comisión nacional de investigación científica y tecnológica
  • INECO Foundation
  • inter-american development bank
  • PICT
  • national institute on aging
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
multiple sclerosis, fatigue, interoception, interoceptive accuracy, insula, anterior cingulate cortex, gray matter volume, functional connectivity, resting-state fMRI, neuroimaging biomarkers, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale
MeSH terms
Cerebral Cortex, Fatigue, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Multiple Sclerosis, Interoception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review