4.4 Article

Is radiological evaluation as good as computer-based volumetry to assess hippocampal atrophy in Alzheimer's disease?

期刊

NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 54, 期 12, 页码 1321-1330

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-012-1058-0

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Mild cognitive impairment (MCI); Volumetric MRI; Visual scale

资金

  1. ADNI (National Institutes of Health) [U01 AG024904]
  2. National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  3. NIH [P30 AG010129, K01 AG030514]
  4. Dana Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hippocampus volumetry is a useful surrogate marker for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Our purpose was to compare visual assessment of medial temporal lobe atrophy made by radiologists with automatic hippocampal volume and to compare their performances for the classification of AD, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively normal (CN). We studied 30 CN, 30 MCI and 30 AD subjects. Six radiologists with two levels of expertise performed two readings of medial temporal lobe atrophy. Medial temporal lobe atrophy was evaluated on coronal three-dimensional T1-weighted images using Scheltens scale and compared with hippocampal volume obtained using a fully automatic segmentation method (Spearman's rank coefficient). Visual assessment of medial temporal lobe atrophy was correlated with hippocampal volume (p < 0.01). Classification performances between MCI converter and CN was better using volumetry than visual assessment of non-expert readers whereas classification of AD and CN did not differ between visual assessment and volumetry except for the first reading of one non-expert (p = 0.03). Visual assessment of medial temporal lobe atrophy by radiologists was well correlated with hippocampal volume. Radiological assessment is as good as computer-based volumetry for the classification of AD, MCI non-converter and CN and less good for the classification of MCI converter versus CN. Use of Scheltens scale for assessing hippocampal atrophy in AD seems thus justified in clinical routine.

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