4.7 Article

Diffusion tensor imaging of post mortem multiple sclerosis brain

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 467-477

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.12.010

关键词

-

资金

  1. Multiple Sclerosis Society [748] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Wellcome Trust [075941] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being used to probe the central nervous system (CNS) of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic demyelinating disease. Conventional T-2-weighted MRI (cMRI) largely fails to predict the degree of patients' disability. This shortcoming may be due to poor specificity of cMRI for clinically relevant pathology. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) has shown promise to be more specific for MS pathology. In this study we investigated the association between histological indices of myelin content, axonal count and gliosis, and two measures of DTI (mean diffusivity [MD] and fractional anisotropy [FA]), in unfixed post mortem MS brain using a 1.5-T AIR system. Both MD and FA were significantly lower in post mortem MS brain compared to published data acquired in vivo. However, the differences of MD and FA described in vivo between white matter lesions (WMLs) and normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) were retained in this study of post mortem brain: average MD in WMLs was 0.35 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s (SD, 0.09) versus 0.22 (0.04) in NAWM; FA was 0.22 (0.06) in WMLs versus 0.38 (0.13) in NAWM. Correlations were detected between myelin content (Tr-myelin) and (i) FA ( r = -0.79, p < 0.001), (ii) MD (r = 0.68, p < 0.001), and (iii) axonal count (r = -0.81, p < 0.001). Multiple regression suggested that these correlations largely explain the apparent association of axonal count with (i) FA (r = 0.70, p < 0.001) and (ii) MD (r = -0.66, p < 0.001). In conclusion, this study suggests that FA and MD are affected by myelin content and - to a lesser degree - axonal count in post mortem MS brain. (c) 2006 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

4.7
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