ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2015
Macro- and microstructural changes in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia type 6: assessment of phylogenetic subdivisions of the cerebellum and the brain stem.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Involvement of the Superior Cerebellar Peduncles in GAA-Neurology. Genetics · 2025Article
- Article
- Understanding microstructure of the brain by comparison of neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) with transparent mouse brain.Acta radiologica open · 2017Article
- Sensory and motor cortex function contributes to symptom severity in spinocerebellar ataxia type 6.Brain structure & function · 2017Article
- Degenerative Ataxias: challenges in clinical research.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2017Review
- Hindbrain regional growth in preterm newborns and its impairment in relation to brain injury.Human brain mapping · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeSite-specific degeneration patterns of the infratentorial brain in relation to phylogenetic origins may relate to symptoms in patients with spinocerebellar degeneration, but the patterns are still unclear. We investigated macro- and microstructural changes of the infratentorial brain based on phylogenetic origins and their correlation with symptoms in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia type 6. MATERIALS AND
methodsMR images of 9 patients with spinocerebellar ataxia type 6 and 9 age- and sex-matched controls were obtained. We divided the infratentorial brain on the basis of phylogenetic origins and performed an atlas-based analysis. Comparisons of the 2 groups and a correlation analysis assessed with the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale excluding age effects were performed.
resultsA significant decrease of fractional volume and an increase of mean diffusivity were seen in all subdivisions of the cerebellum and in all the cerebellar peduncles except mean diffusivity in the inferior cerebellar peduncle in patients compared with controls (P < .0001 to <.05). The bilateral anterior lobes showed the strongest atrophy. Fractional volume decreased mainly in old regions, whereas mean diffusivity increased mainly in new regions of the cerebellum. Reflecting this tendency, the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale total score showed strong correlations in fractional volume in the right flocculonodular lobe and the bilateral deep structures and in mean diffusivity in the bilateral posterior lobes (r = 0.73 to ±0.87).
conclusionsWe found characteristic macro- and microstructural changes, depending on phylogenetic regions of the infratentorial brain, that strongly correlated with clinical symptoms in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia type 6.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.