Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Cholinergic basal forebrain atrophy predicts amyloid burden in Alzheimer's disease
Teipel S, Heinsen H, Amaro E, Grinberg LT, Krause B, Grothe M, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.. Neurobiology of aging, 2013-10-28
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
We compared accuracy of hippocampus and basal forebrain cholinergic system (BFCS) atrophy to predict cortical amyloid burden in 179 cognitively normal subjects (CN), 269 subjects with early stages of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 136 subjects with late stages of MCI, and 86 subjects with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia retrieved from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. Hippocampus and BFCS volumes were determined from structural magnetic resonance imaging scans at 3 Tesla, and cortical amyloid load from AV45 (florbetapir) positron emission tomography scans. In receiver operating characteristics analyses, BFCS volume provided significantly more accurate classification into amyloid-negative and -positive categories than hippocampus volume. In contrast, hippocampus volume more accurately identified the diagnostic categories of AD, late and early MCI, and CN compared with whole and anterior BFCS volume, whereas posterior BFCS and hippocampus volumes yielded similar diagnostic accuracy. In logistic regression analysis, hippocampus and posterior BFCS volumes contributed significantly to discriminate MCI and AD from CN, but only BFCS volume predicted amyloid status. Our findings suggest that BFCS atrophy is more closely associated with cortical amyloid burden than hippocampus atrophy in predementia AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Teipel, S., Heinsen, H., Amaro, E., Grinberg, L. T., Krause, B., Grothe, M., et al. (2014). Cholinergic basal forebrain atrophy predicts amyloid burden in Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of aging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.09.029
Vancouver
Teipel S, Heinsen H, Amaro E, Grinberg LT, Krause B, Grothe M, et al. Cholinergic basal forebrain atrophy predicts amyloid burden in Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of aging. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.09.029. PMID: 24176625.
BibTeX
@article{teipel2014-24176625,
author = {Teipel, S. and Heinsen, H. and Amaro, E. and Grinberg, L. T. and Krause, B. and Grothe, M. and {Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Cholinergic basal forebrain atrophy predicts amyloid burden in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Neurobiology of aging},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.09.029},
pmid = {24176625},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.09.029}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- In receiver operating characteristics analyses, BFCS volume provided significantly more accurate classification into amyloid-negative and -positive categories than hippocampus volume.
- In contrast, hippocampus volume more accurately identified the diagnostic categories of AD, late and early MCI, and CN compared with whole and anterior BFCS volume, whereas posterior BFCS and hippocampus volumes yielded similar diagnostic accuracy.
- In logistic regression analysis, hippocampus and posterior BFCS volumes contributed significantly to discriminate MCI and AD from CN, but only BFCS volume predicted amyloid status.
- Our findings suggest that BFCS atrophy is more closely associated with cortical amyloid burden than hippocampus atrophy in predementia AD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants269
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed 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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurobiology of aging) |
| 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 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 269 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 24176625) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 “basal-forebrain”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “basal-forebrain”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.