Renée DeVivo1,2, Lauren Zajac1,2, Asim Mian3, Anna Cervantes-Arslanian4, Eric Steinberg5, Michael L Alosco5,6, Jesse Mez5,6, Robert Stern1,4,5,6, Ronald Killany1,2,5,7. 1. Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Center for Biomedical Imaging, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Boston University Alzheimer's Disease Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether volumetric measures of the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, and other cortical measures can differentiate between cognitively normal individuals and subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHOD: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from 46 cognitively normal subjects and 50 subjects with MCI as part of the Boston University Alzheimer's Disease Center research registry and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were used in this cross-sectional study. Cortical, subcortical, and hippocampal subfield volumes were generated from each subject's MRI data using FreeSurfer v6.0. Nominal logistic regression models containing these variables were used to identify subjects as control or MCI. RESULTS: A model containing regions of interest (superior temporal cortex, caudal anterior cingulate, pars opercularis, subiculum, precentral cortex, caudal middle frontal cortex, rostral middle frontal cortex, pars orbitalis, middle temporal cortex, insula, banks of the superior temporal sulcus, parasubiculum, paracentral lobule) fit the data best (R2 = .7310, whole model test chi-square = 97.16, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: MRI data correctly classified most subjects using measures of selected medial temporal lobe structures in combination with those from other cortical areas, yielding an overall classification accuracy of 93.75%. These findings support the notion that, while volumes of medial temporal lobe regions differ between cognitively normal and MCI subjects, differences that can be used to distinguish between these two populations are present elsewhere in the brain.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether volumetric measures of the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, and other cortical measures can differentiate between cognitively normal individuals and subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHOD: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from 46 cognitively normal subjects and 50 subjects with MCI as part of the Boston University Alzheimer's Disease Center research registry and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were used in this cross-sectional study. Cortical, subcortical, and hippocampal subfield volumes were generated from each subject's MRI data using FreeSurfer v6.0. Nominal logistic regression models containing these variables were used to identify subjects as control or MCI. RESULTS: A model containing regions of interest (superior temporal cortex, caudal anterior cingulate, pars opercularis, subiculum, precentral cortex, caudal middle frontal cortex, rostral middle frontal cortex, pars orbitalis, middle temporal cortex, insula, banks of the superior temporal sulcus, parasubiculum, paracentral lobule) fit the data best (R2 = .7310, whole model test chi-square = 97.16, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: MRI data correctly classified most subjects using measures of selected medial temporal lobe structures in combination with those from other cortical areas, yielding an overall classification accuracy of 93.75%. These findings support the notion that, while volumes of medial temporal lobe regions differ between cognitively normal and MCI subjects, differences that can be used to distinguish between these two populations are present elsewhere in the brain.
Authors: Juan Eugenio Iglesias; Jean C Augustinack; Khoa Nguyen; Christopher M Player; Allison Player; Michelle Wright; Nicole Roy; Matthew P Frosch; Ann C McKee; Lawrence L Wald; Bruce Fischl; Koen Van Leemput Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Y Xu; C R Jack; P C O'Brien; E Kokmen; G E Smith; R J Ivnik; B F Boeve; R G Tangalos; R C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-05-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: A T Du; N Schuff; D Amend; M P Laakso; Y Y Hsu; W J Jagust; K Yaffe; J H Kramer; B Reed; D Norman; H C Chui; M W Weiner Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Eric Westman; Andrew Simmons; Yi Zhang; J-Sebastian Muehlboeck; Catherine Tunnard; Yawu Liu; Louis Collins; Alan Evans; Patrizia Mecocci; Bruno Vellas; Magda Tsolaki; Iwona Kłoszewska; Hilkka Soininen; Simon Lovestone; Christian Spenger; Lars-Olof Wahlund Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: R J Killiany; T Gomez-Isla; M Moss; R Kikinis; T Sandor; F Jolesz; R Tanzi; K Jones; B T Hyman; M S Albert Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Philipp G Sämann; Juan Eugenio Iglesias; Boris Gutman; Dominik Grotegerd; Ramona Leenings; Claas Flint; Udo Dannlowski; Emily K Clarke-Rubright; Rajendra A Morey; Theo G M van Erp; Christopher D Whelan; Laura K M Han; Laura S van Velzen; Bo Cao; Jean C Augustinack; Paul M Thompson; Neda Jahanshad; Lianne Schmaal Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2020-12-27 Impact factor: 5.038