Home › Research › Tau biomarkers
Combining MRI and CSF measures for classification of Alzheimer's disease and prediction of mild cognitive impairment conversion
Westman E, Muehlboeck JS, Simmons A.. NeuroImage, 2012-05-03
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The suggested revision of the NINCDS-ADRDA criterion for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) includes at least one abnormal biomarker among magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). We aimed to investigate if the combination of baseline MRI and CSF could enhance the classification of AD compared to using either alone and predict mild cognitive impairment (MCI) conversion at multiple future time points. 369 subjects from the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were included in the study (AD=96, MCI=162 and CTL=111). Freesurfer was used to generate regional subcortical volumes and cortical thickness measures. A total of 60 variables were used for orthogonal partial least squares to latent structures (OPLS) multivariate analysis (57 MRI measures and 3 CSF measures: Aβ(42), t-tau and p-tau). Combining MRI and CSF gave the best results for distinguishing AD vs. CTL. We found an accuracy of 91.8% for the combined model at baseline compared to 81.6% for CSF measures and 87.0% for MRI measures alone. The combined model also gave the best accuracy when distinguishing between MCI vs. CTL (77.6%) at baseline. MCI subjects who converted to AD by 12 and 18month follow-up were accurately predicted at baseline using an AD vs. CTL model (82.9% and 86.4% respectively), with lower prediction accuracies for those MCI subjects converting by 24 and 36month follow up (75.4% and 68.0% respectively). The overall prediction accuracies for converters and non-converters ranged from 58.6% to 66.4% at different time points. Combining MRI and CSF measures in a multivariate model at baseline gave better accuracy for discriminating between AD and CTL, between MCI and CTL and for predicting future conversion from MCI to AD, than using either MRI or CSF separately.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Westman, E., Muehlboeck, J. S., & Simmons, A. (2012). Combining MRI and CSF measures for classification of Alzheimer's disease and prediction of mild cognitive impairment conversion. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.056
Vancouver
Westman E, Muehlboeck JS, Simmons A. Combining MRI and CSF measures for classification of Alzheimer's disease and prediction of mild cognitive impairment conversion. NeuroImage. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.056. PMID: 22580170.
BibTeX
@article{westman2012-22580170,
author = {Westman, E. and Muehlboeck, J. S. and Simmons, A.},
title = {{Combining MRI and CSF measures for classification of Alzheimer's disease and prediction of mild cognitive impairment conversion}},
journal = {NeuroImage},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.056},
pmid = {22580170},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.056}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We aimed to investigate if the combination of baseline MRI and CSF could enhance the classification of AD compared to using either alone and predict mild cognitive impairment (MCI) conversion at multiple future time points. 369 subjects from the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were included in the study (AD=96, MCI=162 and CTL=111).
- Combining MRI and CSF gave the best results for distinguishing AD vs.
- We found an accuracy of 91.8% for the combined model at baseline compared to 81.6% for CSF measures and 87.0% for MRI measures alone.
- The overall prediction accuracies for converters and non-converters ranged from 58.6% to 66.4% at different time points.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants369
- Effect size91.8%; 81.6%; 87.0%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 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 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 369 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 22580170) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Tau biomarkers
Also tagged “conversion”
6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “conversion”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.