4.7 Article

Cognitive correlates of white matter lesion load and brain atrophy The Northern Manhattan Study

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 85, 期 5, 页码 441-449

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001716

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [K02NS059729, R37NS29993]
  2. Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:We investigated white matter lesion load and global and regional brain volumes in relation to domain-specific cognitive performance in the stroke-free Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS) population.Methods:We quantified white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV), total cerebral volume (TCV), and total lateral ventricular (TLV) volume, as well as hippocampal and cortical gray matter (GM) lobar volumes in a subgroup. We used general linear models to examine MRI markers in relation to domain-specific cognitive performance, adjusting for key covariates.Results:MRI and cognitive data were available for 1,163 participants (mean age 70 9 years; 60% women; 66% Hispanic, 17% black, 15% white). Across the entire sample, those with greater WMHV had worse processing speed. Those with larger TLV volume did worse on episodic memory, processing speed, and semantic memory tasks, and TCV did not explain domain-specific variability in cognitive performance independent of other measures. Age was an effect modifier, and stratified analysis showed that TCV and WMHV explained variability in some domains above age 70. Smaller hippocampal volume was associated with worse performance across domains, even after adjusting for APOE epsilon 4 and vascular risk factors, whereas smaller frontal lobe volumes were only associated with worse executive function.Conclusions:In this racially/ethnically diverse, community-based sample, white matter lesion load was inversely associated with cognitive performance, independent of brain atrophy. Lateral ventricular, hippocampal, and lobar GM volumes explained domain-specific variability in cognitive performance.

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