4.5 Article

Longitudinal H-1 MRS changes in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 28, 期 9, 页码 1330-1339

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2006.06.018

关键词

H-1 MR spectroscopy; H-1 MRS; imaging; Alzheimer's disease; mild cognitive impairment; serial; longitudinal; N-acetylaspartate; choline

资金

  1. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [K12HD049078] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [U01AG006786, R01AG011378, P50AG016574] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIA NIH HHS [U01 AG006786, AG06786, U01 AG006786-23, P50 AG016574, AG16574, AG11378, R01 AG011378-15, R01 AG011378, P50 AG016574-05] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NICHD NIH HHS [K12 HD049078, K12 HD049078-01, K12-HD049078] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnetic resonance (MR)-based volume measurements of atrophy are potential markers of disease progression in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Longitudinal changes in H-1 MR spectroscopy (H-1 MRS) metabolite markers have not been characterized in MCI subjects. Our objective was to determine the longitudinal H-1 MRS metabolite changes in patients with MCI, and AD, and to compare H-1 MRS metabolite ratios and ventricular volumes in tracking clinical disease progression in AD. The neuronal integrity marker N-acetylaspartate/creatine ratio declined in MCI and AD patients compared to cognitively normal elderly. The change in H-1 MRS metabolite ratios correlated with clinical progression about as strongly as the rate of ventricular expansion, suggesting that H-1 MRS metabolite ratios may be useful markers for the progression of AD. Choline/creatine ratio declined in stable MCI, compared to converter MCI patients and cognitively normal elderly, which may be related to a compensatory mechanism in MCI patients who did not to progress to AD. (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

4.5
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