Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Amyloid burden and metabolic function in early-onset Alzheimer's disease: parietal lobe involvement
Ossenkoppele R, Zwan MD, Tolboom N, van Assema DM, Adriaanse SF, Kloet RW, Boellaard R, Windhorst AD et al.. Brain : a journal of neurology, 2012-05-03
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Younger patients showed more severe impairment on visuo-spatial function, attention and executive function composite scores (P<0.05), while we found a trend towards poorer memory performance for older patients (P=0.11). There was no main effect of age for [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound-B or [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose, suggesting that overall, the extent of amyloid deposition or glucose hypometabolism did not differ between groups. These in vivo findings suggest that clinical differences between younger and older patients with Alzheimer's disease are not restricted to topographical differentiation in downstream processes but may originate from distinctive distributions of early upstream events.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ossenkoppele, R., Zwan, M. D., Tolboom, N., van Assema, D. M., Adriaanse, S. F., Kloet, R. W., et al. (2012). Amyloid burden and metabolic function in early-onset Alzheimer's disease: parietal lobe involvement. Brain : a journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aws113
Vancouver
Ossenkoppele R, Zwan MD, Tolboom N, van Assema DM, Adriaanse SF, Kloet RW, et al. Amyloid burden and metabolic function in early-onset Alzheimer's disease: parietal lobe involvement. Brain : a journal of neurology. 2012. doi:10.1093/brain/aws113. PMID: 22556189.
BibTeX
@article{ossenkoppele2012-22556189,
author = {Ossenkoppele, R. and Zwan, M. D. and Tolboom, N. and van Assema, D. M. and Adriaanse, S. F. and Kloet, R. W. and Boellaard, R. and Windhorst, A. D. and others},
title = {{Amyloid burden and metabolic function in early-onset Alzheimer's disease: parietal lobe involvement}},
journal = {Brain : a journal of neurology},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1093/brain/aws113},
pmid = {22556189},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/aws113}
}
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.
Key findings
- Younger patients showed more severe impairment on visuo-spatial function, attention and executive function composite scores (P<0.05), while we found a trend towards poorer memory performance for older patients (P=0.11).
- There was no main effect of age for [(11)C]Pittsburgh compound-B or [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose, suggesting that overall, the extent of amyloid deposition or glucose hypometabolism did not differ between groups.
- These in vivo findings suggest that clinical differences between younger and older patients with Alzheimer's disease are not restricted to topographical differentiation in downstream processes but may originate from distinctive distributions of early upstream events.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants45
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain : a journal of neurology) |
| 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 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 45 participants |
| 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 (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 22556189) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “involvement”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “involvement”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.