4.7 Article

Imaging Age-Related Cognitive Decline: A Comparison of Diffusion Tensor and Magnetization Transfer MRI

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 23-30

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21572

Keywords

diffusion tensor imaging; magnetization transfer; cognitive decline; aging

Funding

  1. Research into Ageing programme grant [227]
  2. MRC PhD studentship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine which MR technique was the most sensitive to age-related white matter damage. We compared both diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and magnetization transfer (MT) maps to determine which technique correlated most strongly with cognitive function in a middle-aged and elderly community population. Materials and Methods: In all, 64 healthy subjects (aged 50-90) underwent MR] and neuropsychology. Histograms were generated for white matter mean diffusivity (MID), fractional anisotropy (FA), and MT ratio (MTR). White matter hyperintensity volume (WMH) and brain volume were also determined. Composite neuropsychological scores were derived for 4 cognitive domains (executive function, working memory, episodic memory, and information processing speed). Results: All MR] parameters correlated with age (FA r = 0.726. P < 0.001: MD r = -0.619 P < 0.00 1, MTR r = -0.566, P < 0.001, WMH r = 0.511, P < 0.001). All MRI parameters correlated with cognition, but EM, and particularly FA, correlated most strongly. Adding EM parameters explained more variance in cognition than WMH alone; the increase was greatest with FA, which alone explained 45%, 33%, and 25% of the variance in cognition for information processing speed, episodic memory, and executive function, respectively. Conclusion: EM appears the most sensitive imaging parameter to determine age-related white matter damage. The stronger relationship with FA suggests that axonal damage is important in age-related cognitive decline.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available