4.6 Article

Age, Gender and Normalization Covariates for Spinal Cord Gray Matter and Total Cross-Sectional Areas at Cervical and Thoracic Levels: A 2D Phase Sensitive Inversion Recovery Imaging Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118576

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 NS049477, 1U19A1067152]
  2. National Multiple Sclerosis Society [RG 2899-D11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The source of inter-subject variability and the influence of age and gender on morphometric characteristics of the spinal cord, such as the total cross-sectional area (TCA), the gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) areas, currently remain under investigation. Understanding the effect of covariates such as age, gender, brain volumes, and skull-and vertebra-derived metrics on cervical and thoracic spinal cord TCA and GM areas in healthy subjects would be fundamental for exploring compartment specific changes in neurological diseases affecting the spinal cord. Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3T we investigated 32 healthy subjects using a 2D phase sensitive inversion recovery sequence and we measured TCA, GM and WM areas at 4 cervical and thoracic levels of the spinal cord. We assessed age and gender relationships of cord measures and explored associations between cord measures and a) brain volumes and b) skull-and vertebra-derived metrics. Age and gender had a significant effect on TCA, WM and GM areas (with women and elderly having smaller values than men and younger people respectively), but not on the GM area/TCA ratio. The total intracranial volume and C3 vertebra dimensions showed the highest correlations with cord measures. When used in multi-regression models, they reduced cord areas group variability by approximately a third. Age and gender influences on cord measures and normalization strategies here presented might be of use in the study of compartment specific changes in various neurological diseases affecting the spinal cord.

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

4.6
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