4.2 Article

Comparison of automated volumetry of the hippocampus using NeuroQuant® and visual assessment of the medial temporal lobe in Alzheimer's disease

Journal

ACTA RADIOLOGICA
Volume 59, Issue 8, Pages 997-1001

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0284185117743778

Keywords

Dementia; subjective cognitive impairment; mild cognitive impairment; Alzheimer's disease; NeuroQuant; Scheltens scale

Funding

  1. Southern and Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority [2013058]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Different clinically feasible methods for evaluation of medial temporal lobe atrophy exists and are useful in diagnostic work-up of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Purpose: To compare the diagnostic properties of two clinically available magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based methodsan automated volumetric software, NeuroQuant (R) (NQ) (evaluation of hippocampus volume) and the Scheltens scale (visual evaluation of medial temporal lobe atrophy [MTA])in patients with AD dementia, and subjective and mild cognitive impairment (non-dementia). Material and Methods: MRIs from 56 patients (31 AD, 25 non-dementia) were assessed with both methods. Correlations between the methods were calculated and receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses that yield area under the curve (AUC) statistics were conducted. Results: High correlations were found between the two MRI assessments for the total hippocampal volume measured with NQ and mean MTA score (-0.753, P < 0.001), for the right (-0.767, P < 0.001), and for the left (-0.675, P < 0.001) sides. The NQ total measure yielded somewhat higher AUC (0.88, good) compared to the MTA mean measure (0.80, good) in the comparison of patients with AD and non-dementia, but the accuracy was in favor of the MTA scale. Conclusion: The two methods correlated highly and both methods reached equally good power.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available