4.5 Article

Quantitative assessment of the intracranial vasculature in an older adult population using iCafe

Journal

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
Volume 79, Issue -, Pages 59-65

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2019.02.027

Keywords

iCafe; Aging; Vascular change; Feature extraction; Intracranial artery; Vascular biomarker

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-NS083503, R01-NS092207, R01-HL103609]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81771825]
  3. Philips Healthcare

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Comprehensive quantification of intracranial artery features may help us assess and understand variations of blood supply during brain development and aging. We analyzed vasculature features of 163 participants (age 56-85 years, mean of 71) from a community study to investigate if any of the features varied with age. Three-dimensional time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography images of these participants were processed in IntraCranial artery feature extraction technique (a recently developed technique to obtain quantitative features of arteries) to divide intracranial vasculatures into anatomical segments and generate 8 morphometry and intensity features for each segment. Overall, increase in age was found negatively associated with number of branches and average order of intracranial arteries while positively associated with tortuosity, which remained after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. The associations with number of branches and average order were consistently found between 3 main intracranial artery regions, whereas the association with tortuosity appeared to be present only in middle cerebral artery/distal arteries. The combination of time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography and IntraCranial artery feature extraction technique may provide an effective way to study vascular conditions and changes in the aging brain. (C) 2019 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