4.7 Article

Gray matter atrophy is related to long-term disability in multiple sclerosis

期刊

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
卷 64, 期 3, 页码 247-254

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ana.21423

关键词

-

资金

  1. Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  2. Department of Health's National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the relation of gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) brain volumes, and WM lesion load, with clinical outcomes 20 years after first presentation with clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: Seventy-three patients were studied a mean of 20 years from first presentation with a clinically isolated syndrome (33 of whom developed relapsing-remitting MS and 11 secondary-progressive MS, with the rest experiencing no further definite neurological events), together with 25 healthy control subjects. GM and WM volumetric measures were obtained from three-dimensional T1-weighted brain magnetic resonance images using Statistical Parametric Mapping 2. Results: Significant GM (p < 0.001) and WM atrophy (p = 0.001) was seen in MS patients compared with control subjects. There was significantly more GM, but not WM atrophy, in secondary-progressive MS versus relapsing-remitting MS (p = 0.003), and relapsing-remitting MS versus clinically isolated syndrome (p < 0.001). GM, but not WM, fraction correlated with expanded disability status scale (r(s) = -0.48; p < 0.001) and MS Functional Composite scores (r(s) = 0.59; P < 0.001). WM lesion load correlated with GM (r(s) = -0.63; P < 0.001), but not with WM fraction. Regression modeling indicated that the GM fraction explained more of the variability in clinical measures than did WM lesion load. Interpretation: In MS patients with a relatively long and homogeneous disease duration, GM atrophy is more marked than WM atrophy, and reflects disease subtype and disability to a greater extent than WM atrophy or lesions.

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