Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Fractional Gaussian noise, functional MRI and Alzheimer's disease
Maxim V, Sendur L, Fadili J, Suckling J, Gould R, Howard R, Bullmore E.. NeuroImage, 2005-01-21
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
We illustrate these methods principally by showing that there are significant differences between patients with early Alzheimer's disease (AD) and age-matched comparison subjects in the persistence of fGn in the medial and lateral temporal lobes, insula, dorsal cingulate/medial premotor cortex, and left pre- and postcentral gyrus: patients with AD had greater persistence of resting fMRI noise (larger H) in these regions. Comparable abnormalities in the AD patients were also identified by a permutation test of local differences in the first-order autoregression AR(1) coefficient, which was significantly more positive in patients. However, we found that the Hurst exponent provided a more sensitive metric than the AR(1) coefficient to detect these differences, perhaps because neurophysiological changes in early AD are naturally better described in terms of abnormal salience of long memory dynamics than a change in the strength of association between immediately consecutive time points. We conclude that parsimonious mapping of fMRI noise properties in terms of fGn parameters efficiently estimated in the wavelet domain is feasible and can enhance insight into the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Maxim, V., Sendur, L., Fadili, J., Suckling, J., Gould, R., Howard, R., et al. (2005). Fractional Gaussian noise, functional MRI and Alzheimer's disease. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.10.044
Vancouver
Maxim V, Sendur L, Fadili J, Suckling J, Gould R, Howard R, et al. Fractional Gaussian noise, functional MRI and Alzheimer's disease. NeuroImage. 2005. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.10.044. PMID: 15734351.
BibTeX
@article{maxim2005-15734351,
author = {Maxim, V. and Sendur, L. and Fadili, J. and Suckling, J. and Gould, R. and Howard, R. and Bullmore, E.},
title = {{Fractional Gaussian noise, functional MRI and Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {NeuroImage},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.10.044},
pmid = {15734351},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.10.044}
}
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
- We illustrate these methods principally by showing that there are significant differences between patients with early Alzheimer's disease (AD) and age-matched comparison subjects in the persistence of fGn in the medial and lateral temporal lobes, insula, dorsal cingulate/medial premotor cortex, and left pre- and postcentral gyrus: patients with AD had greater persistence of resting fMRI noise (larger H) in these regions.
- Comparable abnormalities in the AD patients were also identified by a permutation test of local differences in the first-order autoregression AR(1) coefficient, which was significantly more positive in patients.
- However, we found that the Hurst exponent provided a more sensitive metric than the AR(1) coefficient to detect these differences, perhaps because neurophysiological changes in early AD are naturally better described in terms of abnormal salience of long memory dynamics than a change in the strength of association between immediately consecutive time points.
- We conclude that parsimonious mapping of fMRI noise properties in terms of fGn parameters efficiently estimated in the wavelet domain is feasible and can enhance insight into the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 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 | 2005 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 15734351) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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.