ArticlePloS one2022
Can hippocampal subfield measures supply information that could be used to improve the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease?
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling the hippocampal subfield changes across the Alzheimer's disease continuum: a systematic review of neuroimaging studies.Brain imaging and behavior · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) needs to be improved. We investigated if hippocampal subfield volume measured by structural imaging, could supply information, so that the diagnosis of AD could be improved. In this study, subjects were classified based on clinical, neuropsychological, and amyloid positivity or negativity using PET scans. Data from 478 elderly Korean subjects grouped as cognitively unimpaired β-amyloid-negative (NC), cognitively unimpaired β-amyloid-positive (aAD), mild cognitively impaired β-amyloid-positive (pAD), mild cognitively impaired-specific variations not due to dementia β-amyloid-negative (CIND), severe cognitive impairment β-amyloid-positive (ADD+) and severe cognitive impairment β-amyloid-negative (ADD-) were used. NC and aAD groups did not show significant volume differences in any subfields. The CIND did not show significant volume differences when compared with either the NC or the aAD (except L-HATA). However, pAD showed significant volume differences in Sub, PrS, ML, Tail, GCMLDG, CA1, CA4, HATA, and CA3 when compared with the NC and aAD. The pAD group also showed significant differences in the hippocampal tail, CA1, CA4, molecular layer, granule cells/molecular layer/dentate gyrus, and CA3 when compared with the CIND group. The ADD- group had significantly larger volumes than the ADD+ group in the bilateral tail, SUB, PrS, and left ML. The results suggest that early amyloid depositions in cognitive normal stages are not accompanied by significant bilateral subfield volume atrophy. There might be intense and accelerated subfield volume atrophy in the later stages associated with the cognitive impairment in the pAD stage, which subsequently could drive the progression to AD dementia. Early subfield volume atrophy associated with the β-amyloid burden may be characterized by more symmetrical atrophy in CA regions than in other subfields. We conclude that the hippocampal subfield volumetric differences from structural imaging show promise for improving the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease.
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.