4.2 Article

The fornix and mammillary bodies in older adults with Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and cognitive complaints: A volumetric MRI study

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH-NEUROIMAGING
卷 147, 期 2-3, 页码 93-103

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2006.01.015

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; mild cognitive impairment; cognitive complaints; fornix; mammillary bodies; volumetric MRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fomix and mammillary bodies are important limbic structures that have not been systematically investigated in the earliest stages of preclinical dementia. The present study examined volumetric changes in the fornix and mammillary bodies and improved previously established tracing guidelines to increase reliability and provide more comprehensive measurements. Volumetric measurements were made in euthymic older adults, including 16 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD), 20 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 20 individuals with cognitive complaints (CC) but normal neuropsychological test performance, and 20 demographically matched healthy controls (HC). Structural magnetic resonance imaging included a T1-weighted 1.5-mm coronal volume, acquired on a GE 1.5T LX scanner. After adjustment for total intracranial volume (ICV), significant volume reductions were observed in the fornix and mammillary bodies in patients with AD as compared with HC, CC, and MCI participants. No volume differences were seen between the HC, CC, and MCI groups. Study findings are consistent with previous research showing volume decreases of the fornix and mammillary bodies in AD, and provide new data on the relative preservation of these structures in preclinical disease stages. Results suggest that atrophy of the fomix and mammillary bodies becomes apparent at the point of conversion from MCI to AD. Longitudinal assessments are needed to delineate the time course and extent of the observed volumetric changes. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.2
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