| Literature DB >> 25501028 |
Elisabeth Kasper1, Christina Schuster2, Judith Machts3, Joern Kaufmann4, Daniel Bittner4, Stefan Vielhaber5, Reiner Benecke6, Stefan Teipel7, Johannes Prudlo8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A relevant fraction of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) exhibit a fronto-temporal pattern of cognitive and behavioural disturbances with pronounced deficits in executive functioning and cognitive control of behaviour. Structural imaging shows a decline in fronto-temporal brain areas, but most brain imaging studies did not evaluate cognitive status. We investigated microstructural white matter changes underlying cognitive impairment using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) in a large cohort of ALS patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25501028 PMCID: PMC4263750 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114543
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Sociodemographic and clinical data of all participants.
| ALS (N = 72) | HC (N = 65) | ||||
| Mean (SD) | Range | Mean (SD) | Range | p | |
| Age (years) |
| 32–82 |
| 33–82 | 0.611 |
| Gender (N male/female) |
|
| 0.515 | ||
| Handedness (N right/left/amb) |
|
| 0.320 | ||
| Education (years) |
| 9–21 |
| 10–17 | 0.116 |
| IQ (WST) |
| 79–139 |
| 92–118 | 0.195 |
| ALSFRS-R |
| 14–46 | |||
| Disease duration (months) |
| 3–272 | |||
| El Escorial (N NA/poss/prob/def) |
| ||||
| Phenotype ALS (N class/UMN/LMN) |
| ||||
HC = Healthy Controls; NA = not assigned; UMN = Upper Motor Neuron variant; LMN = Lower Motor Neuron variant; SD = standard deviation; p = Level of significance from U-tests for independent samples and univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs).
Description of tasks and dependent variables of the neuropsychological test battery.
| Test | Dependent variables |
|
| TMT: Ratio of condition B and condition A |
|
| Stroop-I: Ratio of medians of Condition B |
| Stroop-C: Ratio of medians of Condition C | |
| Stroop-E: Total errors of Condition B and C | |
|
| Number of words starting with letter “K” (RWT-K) |
| Number of words starting with letter “G” and “R” in alteration (RWT-G/R) | |
| Number of animals (RWT-A) | |
| Number of sports and fruits in alteration (RWT-S/F) | |
|
| ToL-E: Number of rule breakings |
| ToL-M: Ratio of number of moves and number of correct trials | |
|
| VM1: Trial 1 |
| VM2: Trial 5 (VLMT)/trial 4 (CVLT) | |
| VM3: Total of Trial 1-5 (VLMT)/total of trial 1-4 (CVLT) | |
| VMIR: Immediate recall - percentage of remembered items after interference trial (both tests merged) | |
| VMDR: Delayed recall - percentage of remembered items after long delay (both tests merged) | |
| VMR: Recognition - percentage of correctly recognized words of all affirmative words (both tests merged) | |
|
| DSF: Digit span forward |
| DSB: Digit span backward | |
| VPA-I: Visual paired associates I | |
| VPA-II-%: Visual paired associates II | |
|
| BOSU-P: Sorting objects according to semantic features |
| BOSU-N: Naming of all items | |
|
| RCFT: Copy trial |
|
| FrSBe-A: Apathy |
| FrSBe-D: Disinhibition | |
| FrSBe-E: Executive Dysfunction |
Condition A: response to grey printed colour words; Condition B (inhibition): response to colour words with conflict of content and ink; Condition C (congruence): decision on conflict or not of word content and ink.
spoken/written; 1 minute generation time; use of indices.
computerised version.
Current ratings by the patients themselves (S) and by a family member (F).
Comparison of dependent neuropsychological variables between cognitive subgroups and healthy controls.
| HC | ALS-ni | ALS-ci | Inter-group -differences p | ||||||
| Dependent Variable | N | Mean | N | Mean | N | Mean | HC vs. ALS-ni | HC vs. ALS-ci | ALS-ci vs. ALS-ni |
| Age | 64 |
| 49 |
| 23 |
| 0.163 | 0.066 |
|
| ALSFRS | 49 |
| 23 |
| 0.6162 | ||||
| Disease duration (m) | 49 |
| 23 |
| 0.2412 | ||||
|
| |||||||||
| TMT | 64 |
| 43 |
| 21 |
| 1.000 |
| 0.0021 |
| Stroop-I | 63 |
| 39 |
| 14 |
| 1.000 |
| 0.1012,4 |
| Stroop-C | 62 |
| 38 |
| 13 |
| 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.5612 |
| Stroop-E | 62 |
| 38 |
| 13 |
| 0.326 |
| 0.7673,4 |
| RWT-K | 64 |
| 46 |
| 19 |
| 1.000 |
|
|
| RWT-G/R | 64 |
| 45 |
| 19 |
|
|
|
|
| RWT-A | 64 |
| 45 |
| 20 |
| 1.000 |
|
|
| RWT-S/F | 64 |
| 45 |
| 19 |
| 1.000 |
|
|
| DSB | 64 |
| 49 |
| 22 |
| 0.835 |
|
|
| ToL-E | 54 |
| 27 |
| 10 |
| 0.857 | 0.910 | 0.7673 |
| ToL-M | 54 |
| 24 |
| 8 |
| 0.065 |
| 0.0821 |
|
| |||||||||
| DSF | 65 |
| 49 |
| 22 |
| 0.196 |
|
|
| VMIR | 64 |
| 49 |
| 21 |
| 1.000 |
|
|
| VMDR | 63 |
| 49 |
| 21 |
| 0.126 |
|
|
| VMR | 63 |
| 48 |
| 19 |
| 0.563 |
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| BOSU-P | 64 |
| 44 |
| 15 |
| 0.933 |
|
|
| BOSU-N | 38 |
| 12 |
| 5 |
| 0.904 |
| 0.1773 |
|
| |||||||||
| RCFT | 49 |
| 29 |
| 17 |
| 1.000 |
|
|
|
| |||||||||
| FrSBe-F-A | 55 |
| 43 |
| 20 |
|
|
| 0.6871 |
| FrSBe-F-D | 55 |
| 43 |
| 20 |
| 0.242 | 0.844 | 0.3001 |
| FrSBe-S-D | 57 |
| 39 |
| 16 |
|
| 0.973 | 0.0521 |
| FrSBe-F-E | 55 |
| 43 |
| 20 |
| 0.439 | 0.592 | 0.9511 |
| FrSBe-S-E | 57 |
| 39 |
| 16 |
|
| 0.261 | 0.4071 |
= higher scores indicate worse performance or high degree of abnormality respectively; 1 = analyzed by AN(C)OVA; 2 = analyzed by Welch-Test/ANOVA/Spearman rank correlations; 3 = analysed by Kruskal-Wallis-Test/U-Test/Spearman rank correlations; 4 = significant effect of the covariate age.
HC = Healthy Controls; ALS-ni = ALS patients without cognitive impairment; ALS-ci = ALS-patients with cognitive impairment; TMT = Trail-Making Test; Stroop-I = Stroop-Inhibition; Stroop-C = Stroop-Congruence; Stroop-E = Total errors; RWT = Regensburg word fluency test; ToL-E = Tower of London-Number of rule breakings; ToL-M = Tower of London Ratio of number of moves and number of correct trials; VMIR = Verbal memory Immediate Recall; VMDR = Verbal Memory Delayed Recall; VMR = Verbal Memory Recognition; DSF/DSB = Digit Span forward and backward; BOSU-P = Bogenhausen Semantic Test –Pointing; BOSU-N = Bogenhausen Semantic Test –Naming; RCFT = Rey complex figure test; FrSBe = Frontal System Behaviour Scale; A = Apathy; D = Disinhibition; E = Executive Dysfunction; S = self rating; F = family rating.
Figure 1Group comparisons of diffusivity values between ALS patients and healthy controls.
Effect of group differences along the TBSS fiber tract skeleton. Effects were thresholded at p<0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons. A) blue: comparison between cognitively intact ALS-patients to healthy controls; B) red = comparison between cognitively impaired ALS-patients to healthy controls; FA = fractional anisotropy; MD = mean diffusivity; AD = axial diffusivity; RD = radial diffusivity
Figure 2Group comparisons of diffusivity values between ALS-ni patients and ALS-ci patients.
Effect of group differences along the TBSS fiber tract skeleton. Effects were thresholded at p<0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons. Violet: comparison between cognitively intact ALS-patients to cognitively impaired ALS-patients; MD = mean diffusivity; AD = axial diffusivity; RD = radial diffusivity
Significant correlations of diffusivity values with neuropsychological variables in patients with ALS.
| NPS Variable | ROI | Diffusivity value with the highest correlation score | Other diffusivity values with significant correlations | ||||||
| ß | Rsqare | rs | p | pFDR | |||||
|
| CC-B |
| 0.411 | 0.001 |
| ||||
|
| CC-B |
| 0.428 | 0.183 | 0.001 |
| |||
| ACR | R |
| −0.433 | 0.188 | 0.001 |
|
| ||
| L |
| 0.382 | 0.146 | 0.005 |
|
| |||
| CL | R |
| 0.409 | 0.167 | 0.002 |
|
| ||
| L |
| 0.416 | 0.173 | 0.002 |
|
| |||
| SFOF | R |
| 0.353 | 0.125 | 0.009 |
| |||
| L |
| 0.393 | 0.155 | 0.004 |
|
| |||
| UF | R |
| 0.493 | 0.243 | 0.000 |
|
| ||
|
| CC-B |
| −0.331 | 0.110 | 0.005 |
| |||
| ACR | R |
| −0.309 | 0.095 | 0.009 |
| |||
| L |
| 0.358 | 0.128 | 0.002 |
|
| |||
| SFOF | L |
| −0.333 | 0.111 | 0.005 |
|
| ||
|
| ACR | L |
| 0.362 | 0.132 | 0.002 |
| ||
|
| CC-B |
| −0.370 | 0.137 | 0.002 |
|
| ||
| ACR | R |
| −0.323 | 0.104 | 0.008 |
|
| ||
| L |
| −0.363 | 0.132 | 0.003 |
|
| |||
| UF | R |
| −0.315 | 0.099 | 0.009 |
| |||
| L |
| −0.309 | 0.095 | 0.011 |
| ||||
|
| CC-B |
| −0.376 | 0.134 | 0.012 |
| |||
| ACR | R |
| −0.472 | 0.222 | 0.001 |
|
| ||
| L |
| −0.528 | 0.278 | 0.000 |
|
| |||
| SFOF | L |
| −0.370 | 0.137 | 0.011 |
|
| ||
| UF | R |
| −0.395 | 0.156 | 0.007 |
|
| ||
|
| SLF | L |
| 0.382 | 0.146 | 0.002 |
| ||
|
| SLF | R |
| −0.401 | 0.161 | 0.004 |
| ||
| L |
| −0.384 | 0.384 | 0.004 |
| ||||
| SFOF | R |
| 0.449 | 0.201 | 0.001 |
|
| ||
including results of regression analysis and Spearman-rank-correlation respectively (pFDR<0.05)
ROI = Region of interest; Stroop-I = Stroop-Inhibition; VMDR = Verbal Memory Delayed recall; VMR = Verbal Memory Recognition; DSB = Digit span backward; RCFT = Rey complex figure test; FrSBe = Frontal System Behaviour Scale; E = Executive Dysfunction; S = self rating; F = family rating; FA = fractional anisotropy; MD = mean diffusivity; AD = axial diffusivity RD = radial diffusivity; L = Left; R = Right; CC-B = Body of corpus callosum; CST = corticospinal tract; ACR = anterior corona radiate; SS = sagittal stratum including both the inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF) and inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus(IFOF)); CL = cingulum; SLF = superior longitudinal fasciculus; SFOF = superior fronto-occipital fasciculus; UF = uncinate fasciculus.