4.4 Article

Development of an MRI rating scale for multiple brain regions: comparison with volumetrics and with voxel-based morphometry

期刊

NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 51, 期 8, 页码 491-503

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-009-0521-z

关键词

Visual rating scale; MRI; VBM

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Sackler Fund Award
  3. Alzheimer's Research Trust
  4. Medical Research Council
  5. Australian Research Council [FF0776229]
  6. MRC [G9439390, G0001237, G9724461, G0600986, MC_U105579221] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Alzheimers Research UK [ART-PG2002-2, ART-PhD2004-2] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [G9439390, G0001237, MC_U105579221, G0600986, G9724461] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10327] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction We aimed to devise a rating method for key frontal and temporal brain regions validated against quantitative volumetric methods and applicable to a range of dementia syndromes. Methods Four standardised coronal MR images from 36 subjects encompassing controls and cases with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) were used. After initial pilot studies, 15 regions produced good intra-and inter-rater reliability. We then validated the ratings against manual volumetry and voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and compared ratings across the subject groups. Results Validation against both manual volumetry (for both frontal and temporal lobes), and against whole brain VBM, showed good correlation with visual ratings for the majority of the brain regions. Comparison of rating scores across disease groups showed involvement of the anterior fusiform gyrus, anterior hippocampus and temporal pole in semantic dementia, while anterior cingulate and orbitofrontal regions were involved in behavioural variant FTD. Conclusion This simple visual rating can be used as an alternative to highly technical methods of quantification, and may be superior when dealing with single cases or small groups.

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

4.4
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