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

Noninvasive MRI biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) may enable earlier clinical diagnosis and the monitoring of therapeutic effectiveness. To assess potential neuroimaging biomarkers, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative is following normal controls (NC) and individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD. We applied high-throughput image analyses procedures to these data to demonstrate the feasibility of detecting subtle structural changes in prodromal AD. Raw DICOM scans (139 NC, 175 MCI, and 84 AD) were downloaded for analysis. Volumetric segmentation and cortical surface reconstruction produced continuous cortical surface maps and region-of-interest (ROI) measures. The MCI cohort was subdivided into single- (SMCI) and multiple-domain MCI (MMCI) based on neuropsychological performance. Repeated measures analyses of covariance were used to examine group and hemispheric effects while controlling for age, sex, and, for volumetric measures, intracranial vault. ROI analyses showed group differences for ventricular, temporal, posterior and rostral anterior cingulate, posterior parietal, and frontal regions. SMCI and NC differed within temporal, rostral posterior cingulate, inferior parietal, precuneus, and caudal midfrontal regions. With MMCI and AD, greater differences were evident in these regions and additional frontal and retrosplenial cortices; evidence for non-AD pathology in MMCI also was suggested. Mesial temporal right-dominant asymmetries were evident and did not interact with diagnosis. Our findings demonstrate that high-throughput methods provide numerous measures to detect subtle effects of prodromal AD, suggesting early and later stages of the preclinical state in this cross-sectional sample. These methods will enable a more complete longitudinal characterization and allow us to identify changes that are predictive of conversion to AD.

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

APA 7th

Fennema-Notestine, C., Hagler, D. J., McEvoy, L. K., Fleisher, A. S., Wu, E. H., Karow, D. S., et al. (2009). Structural MRI biomarkers for preclinical and mild Alzheimer's disease. Human brain mapping. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20744

Vancouver

Fennema-Notestine C, Hagler DJ, McEvoy LK, Fleisher AS, Wu EH, Karow DS, et al. Structural MRI biomarkers for preclinical and mild Alzheimer's disease. Human brain mapping. 2009. doi:10.1002/hbm.20744. PMID: 19277975.

BibTeX

@article{fennemanotestine2009-19277975,
  author  = {Fennema-Notestine, C. and Hagler, D. J. and McEvoy, L. K. and Fleisher, A. S. and Wu, E. H. and Karow, D. S. and Dale, A. M. and {Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
  title   = {{Structural MRI biomarkers for preclinical and mild Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Human brain mapping},
  year    = {2009},
  doi     = {10.1002/hbm.20744},
  pmid    = {19277975},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20744}
}

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 8 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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a cross-sectional study. Everyone is measured once, so it cannot show which came first. Read it as a snapshot of how two things go together at one moment.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
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 moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. 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

Our findings demonstrate that high-throughput methods provide numerous measures to detect subtle effects of prodromal AD, suggesting early and later stages of the preclinical state in this cross-sectional sample.

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

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 47/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Human brain mapping)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2009 — within 20 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	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 19277975)
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 “mri-biomarkers”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “mri-biomarkers”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 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 →