4.7 Review

Clinical and imaging assessment of cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis

期刊

LANCET NEUROLOGY
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 302-317

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70250-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health
  2. Biogen Idec
  3. Merck Serono
  4. Novartis
  5. Teva
  6. Novartis Pharma
  7. Sanofi-Aventis
  8. Genzyme
  9. Bayer Schering Pharma
  10. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries/Sanofi-Aventis
  11. Bayer Pharma AG
  12. Bayer AG Switzerland
  13. Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Society
  14. Bayer
  15. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
  16. Fondazione Italians Sclerosi Multipla
  17. Cure PSP
  18. Jacques and Gloria Gossweiler Foundation (Switzerland)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), grey matter damage is widespread and might underlie many of the clinical symptoms, especially cognitive impairment. This relation between grey matter damage and cognitive impairment has been lent support by findings from clinical and MRI studies. However, many aspects of cognitive impairment in patients with MS still need to be characterised. Standardised neuropsychological tests that are easy to administer and sensitive to disease-related abnormalities are needed to gain a better understanding of the factors affecting cognitive performance in patients with MS than exists at present. Imaging measures of the grey matter are necessary, but not sufficient to fully characterise cognitive decline in MS. Imaging measures of both lesioned and normal-appearing white matter lend support to the hypothesis of the existence of an underlying disconnection syndrome that causes clinical symptoms to trigger. Findings on cortical reorganisation support the contribution of brain plasticity and cognitive reserve in limiting cognitive deficits. The development of clinical and imaging biomarkers that can monitor disease development and treatment response is crucial to allow early identification of patients with MS who are at risk of cognitive impairment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据