Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29036183›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

MRI-assessed atrophy subtypes in Alzheimer's disease and the cognitive reserve hypothesis.

Karin Persson, Rannveig Sakshaug Eldholm, Maria Lage Barca, Lena Cavallin, Daniel Ferreira, Anne-Brita Knapskog, Geir Selbæk, Anne Brækhus, Ingvild Saltvedt, Eric Westman and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Risk Polymorphisms ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Karin PerssonNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6198-7804
Rannveig Sakshaug EldholmDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Maria Lage BarcaNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.
Lena CavallinDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention, and Technology, Division of Medical Imaging and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Daniel FerreiraDivision of Clinical Geriatrics, Department of Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anne-Brita KnapskogDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, The memory clinic, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevaal, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway.
Geir SelbækNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.
Anne BrækhusNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.
Ingvild SaltvedtDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Eric WestmanDivision of Clinical Geriatrics, Department of Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Knut EngedalNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Ageing and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsMRI assessment of the brain has demonstrated four different patterns of atrophy in patients with Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD): typical AD, limbic-predominant AD, hippocampal-sparing AD, and a subtype with minimal atrophy, previously referred to as no-atrophy AD. The aim of the present study was to identify and describe the differences between these four AD subtypes in a longitudinal memory-clinic study.

methodsThe medial temporal lobes, the frontal regions, and the posterior regions were assessed with MRI visual rating scales to categorize 123 patients with mild AD according to ICD-10 and NINCDS-ADRDA criteria and the clinical dementia rating scale (CDR) into atrophy subtypes. Demographic data, neuropsychological measures, cerebrospinal-fluid biomarkers, and progression rate of dementia at two-year follow-up were compared between the groups.

resultsTypical AD was found in 59 patients (48%); 29 (24%) patients had limbic-predominant AD; 19 (15%) had hippocampal-sparing AD; and 16 (13%) belonged to the group with minimal atrophy. No differences were found regarding cognitive test results or progression rates between the different subtypes. Using adjusted logistic regression analysis, we found that the patients in the minimal-atrophy group were less educated, had a lower baseline CDR sum of boxes score, and had higher levels of amyloid β in the cerebrospinal fluid.

conclusionPrevious results concerning the prevalence and the similar phenotypic expressions of the four AD subtypes were confirmed. The main finding was that patients with minimal atrophy as assessed by MRI had less education than the other AD subtypes and that this could support the cognitive reserve hypothesis and, at least in part, explain the lower degree of atrophy in this group. Patients with less formal education might present with clinically typical AD symptoms before they have positive biomarkers of AD and this finding might challenge suggested biomarker-based criteria for AD.

Indexed as

Cognitive ReserveMagnetic Resonance ImagingAgedAlzheimer DiseaseAtrophyCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID29036183
PMCPMC5643102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.