Home › Research › Digital health tools
Heterogeneous patterns of brain atrophy in Alzheimer's disease
Poulakis K, Pereira JB, Mecocci P, Vellas B, Tsolaki M, Kłoszewska I, Soininen H, Lovestone S et al.. Neurobiology of aging, 2018-01-31
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
There is increasing evidence showing that brain atrophy varies between patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), suggesting that different anatomical patterns might exist within the same disorder. We investigated AD heterogeneity based on cortical and subcortical atrophy patterns in 299 AD subjects from 2 multicenter cohorts. Clusters of patients and important discriminative features were determined using random forest pairwise similarity, multidimensional scaling, and distance-based hierarchical clustering. We discovered 2 typical (72.2%) and 3 atypical (28.8%) subtypes with significantly different demographic, clinical, and cognitive characteristics, and different rates of cognitive decline. In contrast to previous studies, our unsupervised random forest approach based on cortical and subcortical volume measures and their linear and nonlinear interactions revealed more typical AD subtypes with important anatomically discriminative features, while the prevalence of atypical cases was lower. The hippocampal-sparing and typical AD subtypes exhibited worse clinical progression in visuospatial, memory, and executive cognitive functions. Our findings suggest there is substantial heterogeneity in AD that has an impact on how patients function and progress over time.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Poulakis, K., Pereira, J. B., Mecocci, P., Vellas, B., Tsolaki, M., Kłoszewska, I., et al. (2018). Heterogeneous patterns of brain atrophy in Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of aging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.01.009
Vancouver
Poulakis K, Pereira JB, Mecocci P, Vellas B, Tsolaki M, Kłoszewska I, et al. Heterogeneous patterns of brain atrophy in Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiology of aging. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.01.009. PMID: 29455029.
BibTeX
@article{poulakis2018-29455029,
author = {Poulakis, K. and Pereira, J. B. and Mecocci, P. and Vellas, B. and Tsolaki, M. and Kłoszewska, I. and Soininen, H. and Lovestone, S. and others},
title = {{Heterogeneous patterns of brain atrophy in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Neurobiology of aging},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.01.009},
pmid = {29455029},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.01.009}
}
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 is increasing evidence showing that brain atrophy varies between patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), suggesting that different anatomical patterns might exist within the same disorder.
- We discovered 2 typical (72.2%) and 3 atypical (28.8%) subtypes with significantly different demographic, clinical, and cognitive characteristics, and different rates of cognitive decline.
- In contrast to previous studies, our unsupervised random forest approach based on cortical and subcortical volume measures and their linear and nonlinear interactions revealed more typical AD subtypes with important anatomically discriminative features, while the prevalence of atypical cases was lower.
- Our findings suggest there is substantial heterogeneity in AD that has an impact on how patients function and progress over time.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Effect size72.2%; 28.8%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 29455029) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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 Digital health tools
Also tagged “diffusion”
172 studies in the library carry the topic tag “diffusion”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 172 tagged studies.