4.5 Article

CSF neurofilament light levels predict hippocampal atrophy in cognitively healthy older adults

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 49, 期 -, 页码 138-144

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.09.012

关键词

Cerebrospinal fluid; Magnetic resonance imaging; Normal aging; Neurofilament light; Hippocampal atrophy rate

资金

  1. Medical Student Research Program at the University of Oslo
  2. National Association for Public Health's dementia research program, Norway
  3. Innlandet Hospital Trust [150201]
  4. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  5. Swedish Research Council [2013-2546, K2013-61X-14002-13-5]
  6. Torsten Soderberg Foundation at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) neurofilament light (NFL) is a marker of axonal degeneration. We tested whether CSF NFL levels predict hippocampal atrophy rate in cognitively healthy older adults independently of the established CSF Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers, b-amyloid 1-42, and phosphorylated tau (P-tau). We included 144 participants in a 2-year longitudinal study with baseline CSF measures and 2 magnetic resonance images. Eighty-eight participants had full data available. A subgroup of 36 participants with very low AD risk was also studied. NFL predicted hippocampal atrophy rate independently of age, b-amyloid 1-42, and P-tau. Including NFL, P-tau, and age in the same model, higher NFL and lower P-tau predicted higher hippocampal atrophy (R-2 = 0.20, NFL: beta = - 0.34; p = 0.003; P-tau: beta - 0.27; p 0.009). The results were upheld in the participants with very low AD risk. NFL predicted neurodegeneration in older adults with very low AD probability. We suggest that factors previously shown to be important for brain degeneration in mild cognitive impairment may also impact changes in normal aging, demonstrating that NFL is likely to indicate AD-independent, age-expected neurodegeneration. (C) 2016 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

4.5
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