4.7 Article

Differentiating shunt-responsive normal pressure hydrocephalus from Alzheimer disease and normal aging: pilot study using automated MRI brain tissue segmentation

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 261, 期 10, 页码 1994-2002

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-014-7454-0

关键词

Normal pressure hydrocephalus; Alzheimer disease; Brain segmentation

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AG012101, AG027852, AG08051, EB01015, NS050520]
  2. Litwin Foundation
  3. [AG 027852]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidence suggests that normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is underdiagnosed in day to day radiologic practice, and differentiating NPH from cerebral atrophy due to other neurodegenerative diseases and normal aging remains a challenge. To better characterize NPH, we test the hypothesis that a prediction model based on automated MRI brain tissue segmentation can help differentiate shunt-responsive NPH patients from cerebral atrophy due to Alzheimer disease (AD) and normal aging. Brain segmentation into gray and white matter (GM, WM), and intracranial cerebrospinal fluid was derived from pre-shunt T1-weighted MRI of 15 shunt-responsive NPH patients (9 men, 72.6 +/- A 8.0 years-old), 17 AD patients (10 men, 72.1 +/- A 11.0 years-old) chosen as a representative of cerebral atrophy in this age group; and 18 matched healthy elderly controls (HC, 7 men, 69.7 +/- A 7.0 years old). A multinomial prediction model was generated based on brain tissue volume distributions. GM decrease of 33 % relative to HC characterized AD (P < 0.005). High preoperative ventricular and near normal GM volumes characterized NPH. A multinomial regression model based on gender, GM and ventricular volume had 96.3 % accuracy differentiating NPH from AD and HC. In conclusion, automated MRI brain tissue segmentation differentiates shunt-responsive NPH with high accuracy from atrophy due to AD and normal aging. This method may improve diagnosis of NPH and improve our ability to distinguish normal from pathologic aging.

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