ArticleJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea)2018
Age-Specific Cutoff Scores on a T1-Weighted Axial Medial Temporal-Lobe Atrophy Visual Rating Scale in Alzheimer's Disease Using Clinical Research Center for Dementia of South Korea Data.
Article in Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of medial temporal and parietal atrophy on cognitive function in dementia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Automated Scoring of Alzheimer's Disease Atrophy Scale with Subtype Classification Using Deep Learning-Based T1-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Image Segmentation.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports · 2024Article
- Predictive Scale for Amyloid PET Positivity Based on Clinical and MRI Variables in Patients with Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Combining visual rating scales to identify prodromal Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease dementia in a population from a low and middle-income country.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Lobar microbleeds are associated with cognitive impairment in patients with lacunar infarction.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeVisual assessment of medial temporal-lobe atrophy (MTA) has been quick, reliable, and easy to apply in routine clinical practice. However, one of the limitations in visual assessments of MTA is the lack of widely accepted age-adjusted norms and cutoff scores for MTA for a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). This study aimed to determine the optimal cutoff score on a T1-weighted axial MTA Visual Rating Scale (VRS) for differentiating patients with AD from cognitively normal elderly people.
methodsThe 3,430 recruited subjects comprising 1,427 with no cognitive impairment (NC) and 2003 AD patients were divided into age ranges of 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80-89 years. Of these, 446 participants (218 in the NC group and 228 in the AD group) were chosen by random sampling for inclusion in this study. Each decade age group included 57 individuals, with the exception of 47 subjects being included in the 80- to 89-year NC group. The scores on the T1-weighted axial MTA VRS were graded by two neurologists. The cutoff values were evaluated from the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
resultsThe optimal axial MTA VRS cutoff score from discriminating AD from NC increased with age: it was ≥as ≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 in subjects aged 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80-89 years, respectively (all p<0.001).
conclusionsThese results show that the optimal cutoff score on the axial MTA VRS for diagnosing of AD differed according to the decade age group. This information could be of practical usefulness in the clinical setting.
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.