Home › Research › Biomarkers
Multimodal MRI reveals impaired glymphatic function with choroid plexus enlargement and cerebrospinal fluid expansion in alzheimer's disease
Lin W, Chen H, Zhang Z, Zhang Y, Wang X, Guo Y, Qin H, Liu T et al.. Scientific reports, 2025-08-19
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
There is increasing evidence that cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) circulation plays a key role in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD), although the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. This study evaluated CSF circulation in patients with AD using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived measures, including choroid plexus (CP) volume, CSF volume, and diffusion tensor imaging along the perivascular space (DTI-ALPS) index. The study included 188 participants: 28 with AD, 40 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 66 with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), and 54 normal controls (NCs). Participants underwent structural T1-weighted MRI, diffusion tensor imaging, clinical assessment, and plasma biomarker analysis. After adjustments for age, sex, and education, group differences in the DTI-ALPS index, CP volume, and CSF volume were examined. Correlation and mediation analyses were conducted to assess the relationships of clinical parameters with DTI-ALPS index, CP volume, and CSF volume. The AD group exhibited a significantly lower DTI-ALPS index and higher CP and CSF volumes compared with the MCI, SCD, and NC groups. The DTI-ALPS index showed a strong negative correlation with both CP and CSF volumes, whereas CP volume was positively correlated with CSF volume. Mediation analysis revealed interactive relationships among the DTI-ALPS index, CP volume, and CSF volume. This study demonstrates that CSF circulation is disrupted in AD patients. Additionally, CP volume influences glymphatic drainage through its effects on CSF volume, indicating a potential role in AD pathophysiology.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lin, W., Chen, H., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Guo, Y., et al. (2025). Multimodal MRI reveals impaired glymphatic function with choroid plexus enlargement and cerebrospinal fluid expansion in alzheimer's disease. Scientific reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-15923-8
Vancouver
Lin W, Chen H, Zhang Z, Zhang Y, Wang X, Guo Y, et al. Multimodal MRI reveals impaired glymphatic function with choroid plexus enlargement and cerebrospinal fluid expansion in alzheimer's disease. Scientific reports. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-15923-8. PMID: 40830653.
BibTeX
@article{lin2025-40830653,
author = {Lin, W. and Chen, H. and Zhang, Z. and Zhang, Y. and Wang, X. and Guo, Y. and Qin, H. and Liu, T. and others},
title = {{Multimodal MRI reveals impaired glymphatic function with choroid plexus enlargement and cerebrospinal fluid expansion in alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Scientific reports},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-025-15923-8},
pmid = {40830653},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-15923-8}
}
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
- The AD group exhibited a significantly lower DTI-ALPS index and higher CP and CSF volumes compared with the MCI, SCD, and NC groups.
- Mediation analysis revealed interactive relationships among the DTI-ALPS index, CP volume, and CSF volume.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants188
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 188 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) |
| 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 40830653) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 Biomarkers
Also tagged “csf”
18 studies in the library carry the topic tag “csf”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 18 tagged studies.