4.4 Article

Predictive value of phospho-tau/total-tau ratio in amyloid-negative Mild Cognitive Impairment

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 787, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2022.136811

关键词

MCI (mild cognitive impairment); Dementia; Neuroimaging, biomarkers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By analyzing the clinical features and patterns of brain atrophy in patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment, this study found that the CSF p/t-tau ratio may be useful in identifying those at higher risk of subsequent conversion to dementia, especially in patients with negative CSF amyloid biomarkers.
Background: In patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment and normal biomarkers of amyloid-beta deposition, prognostication remains challenging. Methods: We aimed at identifying clinical features, patterns of brain atrophy, and risk of subsequent conversion to dementia in a clinical cohort of consecutive patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment and normal CSF amyloid beta(1-42) presenting to our Cognitive Neurology Clinic who were followed prospectively over an average of 25 months. We stratified them as Converters/Non-Converters to dementia based on clinical follow-up and compared baseline clinical features, CSF biomarkers, and pattern of atrophy on MRI data between groups. Results: Among 111 eligible patients (mean age 65,61 years; 56,8% were male), 41 patients developed a clinical diagnosis of dementia. Subjects with low baseline p/t-tau had twofold risk of future conversion compared to high p/t-tau ratio subjects (HR = 2.0, p = 0.026). When stratifying converters according to CSF p/t-tau ratio cut off value (0,17), those with values lower than the cut-off had significantly more MRI atrophy at baseline relative to Non-Converters in limbic structures. Conclusion: In Mild Cognitive Impairment patients with negative CSF amyloid biomarker, CSF p/t-tau ratio may be useful to identify those at greater risk of subsequent conversion, possibly because of TDP43-related underlying pathology.

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