ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2015
Hippocampal volume and hippocampal angle (a more practical marker) in mild cognitive impairment: A case-control magnetic resonance imaging study.
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Volume Changes in Brain Subfields of Patients with Alzheimer's Disease After Transcranial Ultrasound Stimulation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advances in multimodal data fusion in neuroimaging: Overview, challenges, and novel orientation.An international journal on information fusion · 2020Article
- Automatic Diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment Using Electroencephalogram Spectral Features.Journal of medical signals and sensorsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMild cognitive impairment (MCI) accompanies brain atrophy in neuroimaging investigations. The aim of this study was to compare MCI patients with the normal population for hippocampal volume (HV) and hippocampal angle (HA), and to assess the correlation between HV and HA. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a case-control study on 2014, in Kashani Hospital (Isfahan, Iran), 20 MCI patients were compared with 20 normal controls for HV and HA. Subjects were diagnosed with MCI or normal control, based on neuropsychiatry interview, which was confirmed by neuropsychiatry unit cognitive assessment tool (NUCOG). All magnetic resonance imaging scans were processed using the Free-Surfer software package for HV assessment. The HA was measured on the most rostral slice in which the uncal sulcus could be identified on a coronal plane. The data were analyzed using multiple analysis of co-variance and Pearson correlation.
resultsThe mean (standard deviation [SD]) score of NUCOG in control and case group were 91.05 (3.01) and 82.42 (3.57), respectively. Comparison of HV and HA scores in two groups, showed that mean (SD) HV and HA were not different between control and case groups, significantly, (P = 0.094 and P = 0.394, respectively). There was a negative correlation between the adjusted HV and the HA in case (r = -0.642, P = 0.004), and control groups (r = -0.654, P = 0.003).
conclusionHV and HA were not different between MCI patients and normal controls; however, HA is correlated with HV negatively and may be used as an alternative factor because of more feasibility and availability in clinical settings in compared to HV.
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.