4.7 Article

Cognitively normal individuals with AD parents may be at risk for developing aging-related cortical thinning patterns characteristic of AD

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 61, 期 3, 页码 525-532

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.083

关键词

Antecedent biomarker; Familial risk; Alzheimer's disease; Dementia; Adult children study; Cortical thickness; Maternal risk

资金

  1. NIH [P01-AG026276, P50-AG05681]
  2. Pacific Alzheimer Research Foundation [869294]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Children of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients are at heightened risk of developing AD due to genetic influences, including the apolipoprotein E4 (ApoE4) allele. In this study, we assessed the earliest cortical changes associated with AD in 71 cognitively healthy, adult children of AD patients (AD offspring) as compared with 69 with no family history of AD (non-AD offspring). Cortical thickness measures were obtained using Free-Surfer from 1.5 T magnetic resonance (MR) scans. ApoE genotyping was obtained. Primary analyses examined family history and ApoeE4 effects on cortical thickness. Secondary analyses examined age effects within groups. All comparisons were adjusted using False Discovery Rate at a significance threshold of p<0.05. There were no statistically significant differences between family history and ApoE4 groups. Within AD offspring, increasing age was related to reduced cortical thickness (atrophy) over large areas of the precuneus, superior frontal and superior temporal gyri, starting at around age 60. Further, these patterns existed within female and maternal AD offspring, but were absent in male and paternal AD offspring. Within non-AD offspring, negative correlations existed over small regions of the superior temporal, insula and lingual cortices. These results suggest that as AD offspring age, cortical atrophy is more prominent, particularly if the parent with AD is mother or if the AD offspring is female. (c) 2012 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

4.7
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