4.5 Review

Whole-brain N-acetylaspartate as a surrogate marker of neuronal damage in diffuse neurologic disorders

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 1843-1849

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A0774

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIBIB NIH HHS [R01 EB001015, EB01015] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS050520, R01 NS050520, NS051623, NS29029, R56 NS051623, NS39135, R37 NS029029, R01 NS051623, R56 NS050520, R01 NS039135, R01 NS029029] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proton MR spectroscopy (H-1-MR spectroscopy) is a quantitative MR imaging technique often used to complement the sensitivity of conventional MR imaging with specific metabolic information. A key metabolite is the amino acid derivative N-acetylaspartate (NAA), which is almost exclusive to neurons and their processes and is, therefore, an accepted marker of their health and attenuation. Unfortunately, most H-1-MR spectroscopy studies only account for small 1- to 200-cm volumes of interest (VOI), representing less than 20% of the total brain volume. These VOIs have at least 5 additional restrictions: 1) To avoid contamination from subcutaneous and bone marrow lipids, they must be placed away from the skull, thereby missing most of the cortex. 2) They must be image-guided onto MR imaging-visible pathology, subjecting them to the implicit assumption that metabolic changes occur only there. 3) They encounter misregistration errors in serial studies. 4) The time needed to accumulate sufficient signal-intensity quality is often restrictive, and 5) they incur (unknown) T1- and T2-weighting. All these issues are avoided (at the cost of specific localization) by measuring the nonlocalized average NAA concentration over the entire brain. Indeed, whole-brain NAA quantification has been applied to several diffuse neurodegenerative diseases (where specific localization is less important than the total load of the pathology), and the results are presented in this review.

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