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.

47/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Background/objective Patients with posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) often have Alzheimer disease (AD) at autopsy, yet are cognitively and anatomically distinct from patients with clinical AD. We sought to compare the distribution of β-amyloid and glucose metabolism in PCA and AD in vivo using Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) and FDG-PET. Methods Patients with PCA (n = 12, age 57.5 ± 7.4, Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] 22.2 ± 5.1), AD (n = 14, age 58.8 ± 9.6, MMSE 23.8 ± 6.7), and cognitively normal controls (NC, n = 30, age 73.6 ± 6.4) underwent PiB and FDG-PET. Group differences in PiB distribution volume ratios (DVR, cerebellar reference) and FDG uptake (pons-averaged) were assessed on a voxel-wise basis and by comparing binding in regions of interest (ROIs). Results Compared to NC, both patients with AD and patients with PCA showed diffuse PiB uptake throughout frontal, temporoparietal, and occipital cortex (p < 0.0001). There were no regional differences in PiB binding between PCA and AD even after correcting for atrophy. FDG patterns in PCA and AD were distinct: while both groups showed hypometabolism compared to NC in temporoparietal cortex and precuneus/posterior cingulate, patients with PCA further showed hypometabolism in inferior occipitotemporal cortex compared to both NC and patients with AD (p < 0.05). Patients with AD did not show areas of relative hypometabolism compared to PCA. Conclusions Fibrillar amyloid deposition in PCA is diffuse and similar to AD, while glucose hypometabolism extends more posteriorly into occipital cortex. Further studies are needed to determine the mechanisms of selective network degeneration in focal variants of AD.

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

APA 7th

Rosenbloom, M. H., Alkalay, A., Agarwal, N., Baker, S. L., O'Neil, J. P., Janabi, M., et al. (2011). Distinct clinical and metabolic deficits in PCA and AD are not related to amyloid distribution. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e31821cccad

Vancouver

Rosenbloom MH, Alkalay A, Agarwal N, Baker SL, O'Neil JP, Janabi M, et al. Distinct clinical and metabolic deficits in PCA and AD are not related to amyloid distribution. Neurology. 2011. doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e31821cccad. PMID: 21525424.

BibTeX

@article{rosenbloom2011-21525424,
  author  = {Rosenbloom, M. H. and Alkalay, A. and Agarwal, N. and Baker, S. L. and O'Neil, J. P. and Janabi, M. and Yen, IV. and Growdon, M. and others},
  title   = {{Distinct clinical and metabolic deficits in PCA and AD are not related to amyloid distribution}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0b013e31821cccad},
  pmid    = {21525424},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e31821cccad}
}

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: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 12 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
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

Results Compared to NC, both patients with AD and patients with PCA showed diffuse PiB uptake throughout frontal, temporoparietal, and occipital cortex (p < 0.0001).
FDG patterns in PCA and AD were distinct: while both groups showed hypometabolism compared to NC in temporoparietal cortex and precuneus/posterior cingulate, patients with PCA further showed hypometabolism in inferior occipitotemporal cortex compared to both NC and patients with AD (p < 0.05).
Patients with AD did not show areas of relative hypometabolism compared to PCA.

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

Study details

Participants12
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 47/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, 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 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 (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	2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	12 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)
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 21525424)
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.

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

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging from nearby years

Also tagged “distribution”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “distribution”; 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 Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →