4.0 Article

Ecology of the Aging Human Brain

期刊

ARCHIVES OF NEUROLOGY
卷 68, 期 8, 页码 1049-1056

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archneurol.2011.157

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AG05136, NS62684, AG06781, AG008017, AG11378]
  2. Minnesota Medical Foundation
  3. University of Minnesota Institute for Translational Neuroscience
  4. Nancy and Buster Alvord Endowment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Alzheimer disease, cerebral vascular brain injury, and isocortical Lewy body disease (LBD) are the major contributors to dementia in community-and population-based studies. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of clinically silent forms of these diseases in cognitively normal (CN) adults. Design: Autopsy study. Setting: Community-and population based. Participants: A total of 1672 brain autopsies from the Adult Changes in Thought study, Honolulu-Asia Aging Study, Nun Study, and Oregon Brain Aging Study, of which 424 met the criteria for CN. Main Outcome Measures: Of these, 336 cases had a comprehensive neuropathologic examination of neuritic plaque density, Braak stage for neurofibrillary tangles, LB distribution, and number of cerebral micro-infarcts. Results: Forty-seven percent of CN cases had moderate or frequent neuritic plaque density; of these, 6% also had Braak stage V or VI for neurofibrillary tangles. Fifteen percent of CN cases had medullary LBD; 8% also had nigral and 4% isocortical LBD. The presence of any cerebral microinfarcts was identified in 33% and of high-level cerebral microinfarcts in 10% of CN individuals. Overall, the burden of lesions in each individual and their comorbidity varied widely within each study but were similar across studies. Conclusions: These data show an individually varying complex convergence of subclinical diseases in the brain of older CN adults. Appreciating this ecology should help guide future biomarker and neuroimaging studies and clinical trials that focus on community-and population-based cohorts.

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

4.0
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