4.5 Article

Functional MR Imaging Correlates of Neuropsychological Impairment in Primary-Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 7, 页码 1240-1246

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2071

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla [2003/R/48]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cognitive deficits affect <= 30% of patients with PPMS. We investigated the functional correlates of cognitive network dysfunction in patients with PPMS and their correlation with the extent of structural MR imaging damage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 16 right-handed patients with PPMS and 17 matched controls, structural and fMRIs (during the performance of the 2-back task) were acquired. Neuropsychological tests exploring memory, attention, and frontal lobe cognitive domains were administered. 12 LL, NBV, and CC areas were measured. RESULTS: Six patients with PPMS were Cl. Structural MR imaging measures did not differ between patients who were Cl and those who were CP. Compared with patients who were CI, patients who were CP had increased activations of the left caudate nucleus, PFC, and inferior parietal lobule. Compared with controls and patients who were CP, patients who were Cl had increased activations of the SII, cerebellum, and insula. Compared with controls, they also had increased activations of the right precentral gyrus and a reduced recruitment of the left PFC. In patients with PPMS, a decreased composite cognitive score correlated with increased activity of the cerebellum, insula, and SII, as well as decreased PFC activity. T2 LL correlated with decreased PFC recruitment and increased SII recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: In PPMS, an increased recruitment of cognitive-related networks might represent a functional reserve with the potential to limit the severity of cognitive impairment. The accumulation of T2 lesions and the consequent exhaustion of frontal lobe plasticity might contribute to cognitive impairment in PPMS.

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