Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30229130›Full record

ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2018

Current understanding of magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers and memory in Alzheimer's disease.

Ece Bayram, Jessica Z K Caldwell, Sarah J Banks

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Ece BayramDepartment of Neurology, Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Jessica Z K CaldwellDepartment of Neurology, Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Sarah J BanksDepartment of Neurology, Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas, NV, USA.

Funding

Renewal of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) (Phase 2) CNTN - ResubmissionP20GM109025 · NIGMS · CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION · PI JESSICA KIRKLAND CALDWELL · 2015 to 2026
$22.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM109025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is caused by a cascade of changes to brain integrity. Neuroimaging biomarkers are important in diagnosis and monitoring the effects of interventions. As memory impairments are among the first symptoms of AD, the relationship between imaging findings and memory deficits is important in biomarker research. The most established magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) finding is hippocampal atrophy, which is related to memory decline and currently used as a diagnostic criterion for AD. While the medial temporal lobes are impacted early by the spread of neurofibrillary tangles, other networks and regional changes can be found quite early in the progression. Atrophy in several frontal and parietal regions, cortical thinning, and white matter alterations correlate with memory deficits in early AD. Changes in activation and connectivity have been detected by functional MRI (fMRI). Task-based fMRI studies have revealed medial temporal lobe hypoactivation, parietal hyperactivation, and frontal hyperactivation in AD during memory tasks, and activation patterns of these regions are also altered in preclinical and prodromal AD. Resting state fMRI has revealed alterations in default mode network activity related to memory in early AD. These studies are limited in part due to the historic inclusion of patients who had suspected AD but likely did not have the disorder. Modern biomarkers allow for more diagnostic certainty, allowing better understanding of neuroimaging markers in true AD, even in the preclinical stage. Larger patient cohorts, comparison of candidate imaging biomarkers to more established biomarkers, and inclusion of more detailed neuropsychological batteries to assess multiple aspects of memory are needed to better understand the memory deficit in AD and help develop new biomarkers. This article reviews MRI findings related to episodic memory impairments in AD and introduces a new study with multimodal imaging and comprehensive neuropsychiatric evaluation to overcome current limitations.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseaseBiomarkerDementiaMagnetic resonance imagingMemory

Identifiers

PMID30229130
PMCPMC6140335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.