Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Distinct subtypes of Alzheimer's disease based on patterns of brain atrophy: longitudinal trajectories and clinical applications
Ferreira D, Verhagen C, Hernández-Cabrera JA, Cavallin L, Guo CJ, Ekman U, Muehlboeck JS, Simmons A et al.. Scientific reports, 2017-04-18
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Atrophy patterns on MRI can reliably predict three neuropathological subtypes of Alzheimer's disease (AD): typical, limbic-predominant, or hippocampal-sparing. A method to enable their investigation in the clinical routine is still lacking. We aimed to (1) validate the combined use of visual rating scales for identification of AD subtypes; (2) characterise these subtypes at baseline and over two years; and (3) investigate how atrophy patterns and non-memory cognitive domains contribute to memory impairment. AD patients were classified as either typical AD (n = 100), limbic-predominant (n = 33), or hippocampal-sparing (n = 35) by using the Scheltens' scale for medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA), the Koedam's scale for posterior atrophy (PA), and the Pasquier's global cortical atrophy scale for frontal atrophy (GCA-F). A fourth group with no atrophy was also identified (n = 30). 230 healthy controls were also included. There was great overlap among subtypes in demographic, clinical, and cognitive variables. Memory performance was more dependent on non-memory cognitive functions in hippocampal-sparing and the no atrophy group. Hippocampal-sparing and the no atrophy group showed less aggressive disease progression. Visual rating scales can be used to identify distinct AD subtypes. Recognizing AD heterogeneity is important and visual rating scales may facilitate investigation of AD heterogeneity in clinical routine.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ferreira, D., Verhagen, C., Hernández-Cabrera, J. A., Cavallin, L., Guo, C. J., Ekman, U., et al. (2017). Distinct subtypes of Alzheimer's disease based on patterns of brain atrophy: longitudinal trajectories and clinical applications. Scientific reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46263
Vancouver
Ferreira D, Verhagen C, Hernández-Cabrera JA, Cavallin L, Guo CJ, Ekman U, et al. Distinct subtypes of Alzheimer's disease based on patterns of brain atrophy: longitudinal trajectories and clinical applications. Scientific reports. 2017. doi:10.1038/srep46263. PMID: 28417965.
BibTeX
@article{ferreira2017-28417965,
author = {Ferreira, D. and Verhagen, C. and Hernández-Cabrera, J. A. and Cavallin, L. and Guo, C. J. and Ekman, U. and Muehlboeck, J. S. and Simmons, A. and others},
title = {{Distinct subtypes of Alzheimer's disease based on patterns of brain atrophy: longitudinal trajectories and clinical applications}},
journal = {Scientific reports},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1038/srep46263},
pmid = {28417965},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46263}
}
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
- There was great overlap among subtypes in demographic, clinical, and cognitive variables.
- Memory performance was more dependent on non-memory cognitive functions in hippocampal-sparing and the no atrophy group.
- Hippocampal-sparing and the no atrophy group showed less aggressive disease progression.
- Visual rating scales can be used to identify distinct AD subtypes.
- Recognizing AD heterogeneity is important and visual rating scales may facilitate investigation of AD heterogeneity in clinical routine.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants100
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed 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 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Scientific reports) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 100 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 28417965) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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 Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “longitudinal-trajectories”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “longitudinal-trajectories”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.