INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the value of a second MR scan in the radiological diagnosis of dementia. METHODS: One hundred twenty subjects with clinical follow-up of at least 1 year with two scans were selected from a cognitive disorders clinic. Scans were reviewed as a single first scan (method A), two unregistered scans presented side-by-side (method B) and a registered pair (method C). Scans were presented to two neuroradiologists and a clinician together with approximate scan interval (if applicable) and age. Raters decided on a main and subtype diagnosis. RESULTS: There was no evidence that differences between methods (expressed as relative odds of a correct response) differed between reviewers (p = 0.17 for degenerative condition or not, p = 0.5 for main diagnosis, p = 0.16 for subtype). Accordingly, results were pooled over reviewers. For distinguishing normal/non-progressors from degenerative conditions, the proportions correctly diagnosed were higher with methods B and C than with A (p = 0.001, both tests). The difference between method B and C was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). For main diagnosis, the proportion of correct diagnoses were highest with method C for all three reviewers; however, this was not statistically significant comparing with method A (p = 0.23) or with method B (p = 0.16). For subtype diagnosis, there was some evidence that method C was better than method A (p = 0.01) and B (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Serial MRI and registration may improve visual diagnosis in dementia.
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the value of a second MR scan in the radiological diagnosis of dementia. METHODS: One hundred twenty subjects with clinical follow-up of at least 1 year with two scans were selected from a cognitive disorders clinic. Scans were reviewed as a single first scan (method A), two unregistered scans presented side-by-side (method B) and a registered pair (method C). Scans were presented to two neuroradiologists and a clinician together with approximate scan interval (if applicable) and age. Raters decided on a main and subtype diagnosis. RESULTS: There was no evidence that differences between methods (expressed as relative odds of a correct response) differed between reviewers (p = 0.17 for degenerative condition or not, p = 0.5 for main diagnosis, p = 0.16 for subtype). Accordingly, results were pooled over reviewers. For distinguishing normal/non-progressors from degenerative conditions, the proportions correctly diagnosed were higher with methods B and C than with A (p = 0.001, both tests). The difference between method B and C was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). For main diagnosis, the proportion of correct diagnoses were highest with method C for all three reviewers; however, this was not statistically significant comparing with method A (p = 0.23) or with method B (p = 0.16). For subtype diagnosis, there was some evidence that method C was better than method A (p = 0.01) and B (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Serial MRI and registration may improve visual diagnosis in dementia.
Authors: Terry S Yoo; Michael J Ackerman; William E Lorensen; Will Schroeder; Vikram Chalana; Stephen Aylward; Dimitris Metaxas; Ross Whitaker Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2002
Authors: Cleusa P Ferri; Martin Prince; Carol Brayne; Henry Brodaty; Laura Fratiglioni; Mary Ganguli; Kathleen Hall; Kazuo Hasegawa; Hugh Hendrie; Yueqin Huang; Anthony Jorm; Colin Mathers; Paulo R Menezes; Elizabeth Rimmer; Marcia Scazufca Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jason P Lerch; Jens Pruessner; Alex P Zijdenbos; D Louis Collins; Stefan J Teipel; Harald Hampel; Alan C Evans Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2006-11-13 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Rachael I Scahill; Jonathan M Schott; John M Stevens; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-04-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Josephine Barnes; Alison K Godbolt; Chris Frost; Richard G Boyes; Bethany F Jones; Rachael I Scahill; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2006-01-06 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Stefan Klöppel; Cynthia M Stonnington; Carlton Chu; Bogdan Draganski; Rachael I Scahill; Jonathan D Rohrer; Nick C Fox; Clifford R Jack; John Ashburner; Richard S J Frackowiak Journal: Brain Date: 2008-01-17 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Stefan Klöppel; Cynthia M Stonnington; Josephine Barnes; Frederick Chen; Carlton Chu; Catriona D Good; Irina Mader; L Anne Mitchell; Ameet C Patel; Catherine C Roberts; Nick C Fox; Clifford R Jack; John Ashburner; Richard S J Frackowiak Journal: Brain Date: 2008-10-03 Impact factor: 13.501