4.5 Article

Different patterns of cortical gray matter loss over time in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease

Journal

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
Volume 38, Issue -, Pages 21-31

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2015.10.020

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia; Gray matter thickness; Longitudinal; Cognition

Funding

  1. Netherlands Initiative Brain and Cognition (NIHC)
  2. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [056-13-014, 056-13-010]
  3. national project Brain and Cognition (Functionele Markers voor Cognitieve Stoornissen) [056-13-014, 056-13-010]
  4. Alzheimer Nederland and Stichting VUmc Funds
  5. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)
  6. Stichting Dioraphte
  7. Dutch MS Society

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined patterns of cortical thickness loss and cognitive decline over time in 19 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), 10 with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), and 34 controls with a mean interval of 2.1 +/- 0.4 years. We measured vertexwise and regional cortical thickness changes of 6 lobar regions of interest between groups with the longitudinal FreeSurfer pipeline. Compared with controls, AD and bvFTD had a steeper rate of cognitive decline and showed faster cortical thinning per year. Decrease of thickness over time was highest in AD and generalized throughout the whole brain, most pronounced posteriorly, whereas bvFTD patients had a more selective loss in frontal cortex and in anterior parts of the temporal lobes. In a direct comparison, AD patients showed faster cortical thinning in the insula, temporal, and parietal regions, whereas bvFTD patients only showed faster cortical thinning in the orbitofrontal gyrus. Decline of cognitive performances was in line with cortical thinning and deteriorated the most in AD patients. (C) 2016 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