This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

41/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Tau biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) has already been applied to MRI scans of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The results of these studies demonstrated atrophy of the hippocampus, temporal pole, and insula, but did not describe any global brain changes or atrophy of deep cerebral structures. We propose an optimized VBM method, which accounts for these shortcomings. Additional processing steps are incorporated in the method, to ensure that the whole spectrum of brain atrophy is visualized. A local group template was created to avoid registration bias, morphological opening was performed to eliminate cerebrospinal fluid voxel misclassifications, and volume preserving modulation was used to correct for local volume changes. Group differences were assessed and thresholded at P < 0.05 (corrected). Our results confirm earlier findings, but additionally we demonstrate global cortical atrophy with sparing of the sensorimotor cortex, occipital poles, and cerebellum. Moreover, we show atrophy of the caudate head nuclei and medial thalami. Our findings are in full agreement with the established neuropathological descriptions, offering a comprehensive view of atrophy patterns in AD.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Karas, G. B., Burton, E. J., Rombouts, S. A., van Schijndel, R. A., O'Brien, J. T., Ph, S., et al. (2003). A comprehensive study of gray matter loss in patients with Alzheimer's disease using optimized voxel-based morphometry. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00041-7

Vancouver

Karas GB, Burton EJ, Rombouts SA, van Schijndel RA, O'Brien JT, Ph S, et al. A comprehensive study of gray matter loss in patients with Alzheimer's disease using optimized voxel-based morphometry. NeuroImage. 2003. doi:10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00041-7. PMID: 12725765.

BibTeX

@article{karas2003-12725765,
  author  = {Karas, G. B. and Burton, E. J. and Rombouts, S. A. and van Schijndel, R. A. and O'Brien, J. T. and Ph, Scheltens and McKeith, I. G. and Williams, D. and others},
  title   = {{A comprehensive study of gray matter loss in patients with Alzheimer's disease using optimized voxel-based morphometry}},
  journal = {NeuroImage},
  year    = {2003},
  doi     = {10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00041-7},
  pmid    = {12725765},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00041-7}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

The results of these studies demonstrated atrophy of the hippocampus, temporal pole, and insula, but did not describe any global brain changes or atrophy of deep cerebral structures.
Our results confirm earlier findings, but additionally we demonstrate global cortical atrophy with sparing of the sensorimotor cortex, occipital poles, and cerebellum.
Our findings are in full agreement with the established neuropathological descriptions, offering a comprehensive view of atrophy patterns in AD.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 41/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2003 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12725765)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	24 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total	41 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Tau biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “gray-matter”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “gray-matter”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Tau biomarkers

See all studies in Tau biomarkers →