| Literature DB >> 35992919 |
Xiaonan Wang1,2, Di Wang1,2, Xinyang Li1,2, Wenqi Wang3, Ping Gao4, Baohui Lou1, Josef Pfeuffer5, Xianchang Zhang6, Jinxia Zhu6, Chunmei Li1,2, Min Chen1,2.
Abstract
Background: Pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling (pCASL) is widely used to quantify cerebral blood flow (CBF) abnormalities in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). T1-mapping techniques assess microstructural characteristics in various pathologic changes, but their application in AD remains in the exploratory stage. We hypothesized that combining quantitative CBF and T1 values would generate diagnostic results with higher accuracy than using either method alone in discriminating AD patients from cognitively normal control (NC) subjects. Materials and methods: A total of 45 patients diagnosed with AD and 33 NC subjects were enrolled, and cognitive assessment was performed for each participant according to the Chinese version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). T1-weighted magnetization-prepared 2 rapid acquisition gradient echo (MP2RAGE) and pCASL sequence were scanned on a 3T MR scanner. A brain morphometric analysis was integrated into prototype sequence, providing tissue classification and morphometric segmentation results. Quantitative CBF and T1 values of each brain region were automatically generated inline after data acquisition. Independent samples t-test was used to compare regional CBF and T1 values controlled by false discovery rate correction (corrected p < 0.01). The model with combined CBF and T1 values was compared with the individual index by performing receiver operating characteristic curves analysis. The associations between the MMSE score and CBF and T1 values of the brain were investigated using partial correlations.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; T1-mapping; arterial spin labeling; cerebral blood flow; magnetic resonance imaging
Year: 2022 PMID: 35992919 PMCID: PMC9389211 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.974651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 5.152
Demographic and clinical data.
| AD group | NC group |
| |
| Number | 45 | 33 | – |
| Age (years) | 73.51 ± 7.51 | 70.51 ± 7.88 | 0.092 |
| Gender (female %) | 64.44 | 63.64 | 0.941 |
| BMI | 22.59 ± 2.70 | 23.49 ± 2.57 | 0.142 |
| Educational years | 10.82 ± 3.41 | 10.70 ± 3.50 | 0.874 |
| MMSE | 18.38 ± 3.07 | 27.12 ± 1.34 | <0.001 |
AD, Alzheimer’s disease; BMI, body mass index; MMSE, Chinese versions Mini-mental State Examination; NC, normal control.
FIGURE 1Differential cerebral blood flow between AD and NC individuals in 24 brain regions. AD, Alzheimer’s disease; CBF, cerebral blood flow; NC, normal controls; *corrected p < 0.05; **corrected p < 0.01. (A,B) Boxplots of the CBF in different brain regions.
FIGURE 2Axial view of cerebral blood flow (CBF). (A) Image of a typical AD patient (female; 67 years old). (B) Image of a NC subject (male; 73 years old). (C) Image of a typical AD patient (female; 64 years old). (D) Image of a NC subject (female; 64 years old). It could be intuitively shown that (A) views had decreased CBF in right caudate nucleus (RCc) compared to (B) views; (C) views had decreased CBF in left hippocampus (LHc) compared to (D) views.
FIGURE 3Receiver operating characteristic curves based on CBF of RCc, CBF of LHc, T1 value of RCt, and T1 value of LHt, respectively. CBF, cerebral blood flow; LHc, left hippocampus; LHt, left hippocampus; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; RCc, right caudate nucleus; RCt, right caudate nucleus.
FIGURE 5Receiver operating characteristic curves combining three or more parameters. CBF, cerebral blood flow; RCc_LHc_LHt, CBF of right caudate nucleus and, CBF of left hippocampus, and T1 value of left hippocampus; RCc_LHc_RCt, CBF of right caudate nucleus and, CBF of left hippocampus, and T1 value of right caudate nucleus; RCc_LHc_RCt_LHt, CBF of right caudate nucleus and, CBF of left hippocampus, T1 value of right caudate nucleus, and T1 value of left hippocampus; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of various parameter combinations.
| Cut-off | Sensitivity | Specificity | Youden index | AUC | ||
| Mean | 95% CI | |||||
| RCc | 59.902 | 0.844 | 0.636 | 0.480 | 0.731 | 0.609–0.854 |
| LHc | 76.808 | 0.756 | 0.697 | 0.453 | 0.772 | 0.666–0.879 |
| RCt | 1191.832 | 0.756 | 0.758 | 0.513 | 0.759 | 0.641–0.0877 |
| LHt | 1320.708 | 0.800 | 0.727 | 0.527 | 0.813 | 0.718–0.908 |
| RCc_LHc | 0.457(RCc = 63.394, LHc = 77.987) | 0.933 | 0.606 | 0.539 | 0.775 | 0.664–0.886 |
| RCt_LHt | 0.557(RCt = 1309.103, LHt = 1301.550) | 0.822 | 0.697 | 0.519 | 0.820 | 0.729–0.910 |
| RCc_RCt | 0.556(RCc = 60.295, RCt = 1191.832) | 0.844 | 0.849 | 0.693 | 0.865 | 0.772–0.957 |
| LHc_LHt | 0.491(LHc = 85.468, LHt = 1311.493) | 0.867 | 0.788 | 0.655 | 0.866 | 0.784–0.948 |
| RCc_LHc_RCt | 0.424(RCc = 65.090, LHc = 83.520, RCt = 1191.682) | 0.933 | 0.812 | 0.752 | 0.871 | 0.770–0.962 |
| RCc_LHc_LHt | 0.329(RCc = 65.090, LHc = 83.520, LHt = 1281.999) | 0.956 | 0.758 | 0.713 | 0.887 | 0.809–0.965 |
| RCc_LHc_RCt_LHt | 0.452(RCc = 47.451; LHc = 83.771; RCt = 979.333; LHt = 1260.170) | 0.889 | 0.818 | 0.707 | 0.894 | 0.819–0.968 |
AUC, area under the curve; CBF, cerebral blood flow; LHc, CBF of left hippocampus; LHt, T1 value of left hippocampus; RCC, CBF of right caudate nucleus; RCt, T1 value of right caudate nucleus.
Clinically observed severity measurements.
| RCc | LHc | RCt | LHt | ||
| MMSE | r | 0.469 | 0.578 | −0.236 | −0.456 |
| p | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.043 | <0.001 |
LHc, CBF in left hippocampus; LHt, T1 value in left hippocampus; MMSE, Chinese versions Mini-mental State Examination; RCc, CBF in right caudate nucleus; RCt, T1 value in right caudate nucleus.