4.7 Article

Principal component analysis of FDG PET in amnestic MCI

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-008-0869-z

关键词

F-18-FDG PET; Episodic memory; Mild cognitive impairment; Alzheimer's disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of the study is to evaluate the combined accuracy of episodic memory performance and F-18-FDG PET in identifying patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) converting to Alzheimer's disease (AD), aMCI non-converters, and controls. Methods Thirty-three patients with aMCI and 15 controls (CTR) were followed up for a mean of 21 months. Eleven patients developed AD (MCI/AD) and 22 remained with aMCI (MCI/MCI). F-18-FDG PET volumetric regions of interest underwent principal component analysis (PCA) that identified 12 principal components (PC), expressed by coarse component scores (CCS). Discriminant analysis was performed using the significant PCs and episodic memory scores. Results PCA highlighted relative hypometabolism in PC5, including bilateral posterior cingulate and left temporal pole, and in PC7, including the bilateral orbitofrontal cortex, both in MCI/MCI and MCI/AD vs CTR. PC5 itself plus PC12, including the left lateral frontal cortex (LFC: BAs 44, 45, 46, 47), were significantly different between MCI/AD and MCI/MCI. By a three-group discriminant analysis, CTR were more accurately identified by PET-CCS + delayed recall score (100%), MCI/MCI by PET-CCS + either immediate or delayed recall scores (91%), while MCI/AD was identified by PET-CCS alone (82%). PET increased by 25% the correct allocations achieved by memory scores, while memory scores increased by 15% the correct allocations achieved by PET. Conclusion Combining memory performance and F-18-FDG PET yielded a higher accuracy than each single tool in identifying CTR and MCI/MCI. The PC containing bilateral posterior cingulate and left temporal pole was the hallmark of MCI/MCI patients, while the PC including the left LFC was the hallmark of conversion to AD.

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