4.7 Article

Focal cortical atrophy in multiple sclerosis: Relation to lesion load and disability

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 509-517

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.10.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [P01MH52176-06] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is thought to predominantly affect white matter (WM). Recently, however, loss of cortical gray matter has also been described. Little is known about the cause of cortical atrophy in MS, whether it occurs early in the disease course, and whether it affects all cortical regions equally or if there is a preferential pattern of focal cortical atrophy. An automated method was used to compute the thickness at every vertex of the cortical surface of the brains of 425 early relapsing-remitting MS patients. We correlated cortical thickness with the WM lesion load and the Expanded Disability Status Scale score. Mean cortical thickness correlated with WM lesion load and disability. The correlations of cortical thickness with total lesion load and disability were most significant in cingulate gyrus, insula, and associative cortical regions. Conversely, primary sensory, visual, and motor areas showed a less significant relationship. The highest amount of atrophy per lesion volume or disability scale unit was in the anterior cingulate cortex. This study confirms the relation between cortical atrophy, WM lesion load, and disability in MS, and suggests that cortical atrophy occurs even in MS patients with only mild disability. Most interestingly, we show a specific regional pattern of focal atrophy in MS that is distinctively different from the one in normal aging. The predilection of the atrophic process for areas that are heavily interconnected with other brain regions suggests that interruption of WM tracts by MS plaques contributes, at least in part, to the development of cortical atrophy. (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