4.5 Article

3D maps localize caudate nucleus atrophy in 400 Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and healthy elderly subjects

Journal

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
Volume 31, Issue 8, Pages 1312-1325

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.05.002

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; Mild cognitive impairment; Normal aging; Caudate nucleus; Brain mapping; Surface mapping; MRI; Atrophy; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Funding

  1. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (National Institutes of Health) [U01 AG024904]
  2. National Institute on Aging
  3. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  4. NIH [P30 AG010129, K01 AG030514]
  5. Dana Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

MRI research examining structural brain atrophy in Alzheimer's disease (AD) generally focuses on medial temporal and cortical structures, but amyloid and tau deposits also accumulate in the caudate. Here we mapped the 3D profile of caudate atrophy using a surface mapping approach in subjects with AD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to identify potential clinical and pathological correlates. 3D surface models of the caudate were automatically extracted from 400 baseline MRI scans (100 AD, 200 MCI, 100 healthy elderly). Compared to controls, caudate volumes were lower in MCI (2.64% left, 4.43% right) and AD (4.74% left, 8.47% right). Caudate atrophy was associated with age, sum-of-boxes and global Clinical Dementia Ratings, Delayed Logical Memory scores, MMSE decline 1 year later, and body mass index. Reduced right (but not left) volume was associated with MCI-to-AD conversion and CSF tau levels. Normal caudate asymmetry (with the right 3.9% larger than left) was lost in AD, suggesting preferential right caudate atrophy. Automated caudate maps may complement other MRI-derived measures of disease burden in AD. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available