4.7 Article

Diffusion Tensor Imaging Identifies Deficits in White Matter Microstructure in Subjects With Type 1 Diabetes That Correlate With Reduced Neurocognitive Function

期刊

DIABETES
卷 57, 期 11, 页码 3083-3089

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db08-0724

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR [M01-RR-00400]
  2. NIH [R01-MH-060662]
  3. Pennock Family Diabetes Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE-Long-standing type 1 diabetes is associated with deficits on neurocognitive testing that suggest central white matter dysfunction. This study investigated whether diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), a type of magnetic resonance imaging that measures white matter integrity quantitatively, could identify white matter microstructural deficits in patients with long-standing type 1 diabetes and whether these differences would be associated with deficits found by neurocognitive tests. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-Twenty-five subjects with type 1 diabetes for at least 15 years and 25 age- and sex-matched control subjects completed DTI on a 3.0 Tesla scanner and a battery of neurocognitive tests. Fractional anisotropy was calculated for the major white matter tracts of the brain. RESULTS-Diabetic subjects had significantly lower mean fractional anisotropy than control subjects in the posterior corona, radiata and the optic radiation (P < 0.002). In type 1 diabetic subjects, reduced fractional anisotropy correlated with poorer performance on the copy portion of the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure Drawing Test and the Grooved Peg Board Test, both of which are believed to assess white matter function. Reduced fractional anisotropy also correlated with duration of diabetes and increased AM, A history of severe hypoglycemia did not correlate with fractional anisotropy. CONCLUSIONS-DTI can detect white matter microstructural deficits in subjects with long-standing type 1 diabetes. These deficits correlate with poorer performance on selected neurocognitive tests of white matter function. Diabetes 57:3083-3089, 2008

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