4.5 Article

Atrophy progression in semantic dementia with asymmetric temporal involvement: A tensor-based morphometry study

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 103-111

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2007.05.014

关键词

Tensor-based morphometry; Semantic dementia; Temporal lobe; Progression of gray matter atrophy; Longitudinal study

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [R01 NS050915]
  2. State of California [DHS 04-35516]
  3. National Institute on Aging [P50 AG03006, P01 AG019724]
  4. John Douglas French Alzheimer's Foundation
  5. McBean Foundation
  6. Sandler Foundation
  7. Alzheimer's Disease Research Center of California [03-75271 DHS/ADP/ARCC]
  8. Larry Hill-blom Foundation [2002/2F]
  9. Koret Foundation [99-0102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed a longitudinal anatomical study to map the progression of gray matter atrophy in anatomically defined predominantly left (LTLV) and right (RTLV) temporal lobe variants of semantic dementia (SD). TI-weighted MRI scans were obtained at presentation and one-year follow-up from 13 LTLV, 6 RTLV, and 25 control subjects. Tensor-based morphometry (TBM) in SPM2 was applied to derive a voxel-wise estimation of-regional tissue loss over time from the deformation held required to warp the follow-up scan to the presentation scan in each subject. When compared to controls, both LTLV and RTLV showed significant progression of gray matter atrophy not only within the temporal lobe most affected at presentation, but also in the controlateral temporal regions (p < 0.05 FWE corrected). In LTLV, significant progression of volume loss also involved the ventromedial frontal and the left anterior insular regions. These results identified the anatomic substartes of the previously reported clinical evolution of LTLV and RTLV into a unique 'merged' clinical syndrome characterized by semantic and behavioral deficits and bilateral temporal atrophy. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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