4.5 Article

Prediction of MCI to AD conversion, via MRI, CSF biomarkers, and pattern classification

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 32, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.05.023

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Early detection; Mild cognitive impairment; MCI; Pattern classification; Imaging biomarkers; CSF biomarkers; SPARE-AD

资金

  1. Institute for the Study of Aging [AG-10124, AG-024904]
  2. [R01AG14971]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) patterns were examined together with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in serial scans of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The SPARE-AD score, summarizing brain atrophy patterns, was tested as a predictor of short-term conversion to Alzheimer's disease (AD). MCI individuals that converted to AD (MCI-C) had mostly positive baseline SPARE-AD (Spatial Pattern of Abnormalities for Recognition of Early AD) and atrophy in temporal lobe gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM), posterior cingulate/precuneous, and insula. MCI individuals that converted to AD had mostly AD-like baseline CSF biomarkers. MCI nonconverters (MCI-NC) had mixed baseline SPARE-AD and CSF values, suggesting that some MCI-NC subjects may later convert. Those MCI-NC with most negative baseline SPARE-AD scores (normal brain structure) had significantly higher baseline Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores (28.67) than others, and relatively low annual rate of Mini Mental State Examination decrease (-0.25). MCI-NC with midlevel baseline SPARE-AD displayed faster annual rates of SPARE-AD increase (indicating progressing atrophy). SPARE-AD and CSF combination improved prediction over individual values. In summary, both SPARE-AD and CSF biomarkers showed high baseline sensitivity, however, many MCI-NC had abnormal baseline SPARE-AD and CSF biomarkers. Longer follow-up will elucidate the specificity of baseline measurements. (C) 2011 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