4.2 Article

MRI-Defined Corpus Callosal Atrophy in Multiple Sclerosis: A Comparison of Volumetric Measurements, Corpus Callosum Area and Index

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROIMAGING
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 996-1001

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jon.12237

关键词

Corpus callosum area; corpus callosum index; multiple sclerosis; MRI; volumetry

资金

  1. Stockholm County Council
  2. Karolinska Institutet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo compare corpus callosum area (CCA) and corpus callosum index (CCI) in terms of feasibility and their performance as biomarkers for cognitive and physical disability in multiple sclerosis (MS). A secondary aim was to compare these two methods with volumetric measurements. MethodsThis study was based on a cohort of 37 MS patients and a group of age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Physical disability was assessed with the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and cognitive disability with the symbol digit modalities test (SDMT). CCA and CCI were assessed on midsagittal brain MRI by 3 raters with varying radiological experience. Volumes of the brain, gray and white matter, corpus callosum, and MS lesions were acquired with Freesurfer and Lesion Segmentation Toolbox for Statistical Parametric Mapping. ResultsCCA and CCI were obtained within seconds with excellent intra- and inter-rater agreement, and outperformed volumetric measurements. CCA had the strongest correlations with both SDMT (r = .82, P < .001) and EDSS (r = -.56, P < .001), and the highest accuracy in differentiating patients from controls (95%) and relapse-remitting MS from progressive forms of MS (77%). CCI performed less well (r = .73, P < .001; r = -.45, P < .001; 94%; 71%). CCA also outperformed the volumetric measurements in these regards. ConclusionsCCA is a time-effective and robust biomarker that has stronger correlations with both EDSS and information processing speed than CCI and volumetric measurements that are commonly used as outcome measures in MS research and clinical trials.

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