Brain Network Segregation is Associated with Drug Use Severity in Individuals with Opioid Use Disorder

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 2,272 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Opioid use disorder (OUD) is associated with altered brain network connectivity, particularly in the fronto-parietal (FPN), default mode, and salience (SN) networks. At rest, brain networks that are distinct from each other but are partially connected can optimize neural efficiency and support cognitive performance. Previous research found lower network segregation in people with cognitive impairment, alcohol use disorder, and as people age. Here, we examined “brain network segregation”—a graph theory-based metric of the network integration/segregation balance—in individuals with OUD and hypothesized that recent drug use severity would be linked to reduced network segregation. Forty adults with OUD completed resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging, the drug use severity subscale of the Addiction Severity Index, and measures of cognition (IQ and working memory), mood, and affect. We grouped 264 brain regions into 10 networks, categorized as “association” (higher-order cognition) or “sensorimotor” (sensory and motor) networks. Regression analyses showed that drug use severity predicted lower brain network segregation in the association networks, with the FPN and SN driving this effect. Age predicted lower brain network segregation in the sensorimotor networks, while an interaction with age showed that drug use severity only predicted lower sensorimotor network segregation in younger adults. Cognition did not relate to brain network segregation, but positive affect related to greater SN segregation. Brain network segregation remained stable across OUD treatment. These findings elucidate alterations in brain network segregation related to drug use severity in people with OUD, which may contribute to cognitive impairment and accelerated brain aging. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes Funding: This work was supported by NIH/NIDA T32DA028874 (Hager); NIH/NIA T32AG076411 (Ramos-Rolón); Commonwealth of Pennsylvania C.U.R.E. Addiction Center of Excellence: Brain Mechanisms of Relapse and Recovery (Childress); NIH AA031088, NIH AA031337, and NIH DA046345-05W1 (Wiers); NIH/NIDA K01DA051709, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation NARSAD Young Investigator Grant #30780 (Shi);

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00