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.

67/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Disease mechanisms

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

The chronological progression of brain atrophy over decades, from pre-symptomatic to dementia stages, has never been formally depicted in Alzheimer's disease. This is mainly due to the lack of cohorts with long enough MRI follow-ups in cognitively unimpaired young participants at baseline. To describe a spatiotemporal atrophy staging of Alzheimer's disease at the whole-brain level, we built extrapolated lifetime volumetric models of healthy and Alzheimer's disease brain structures by combining multiple large-scale databases ( n = 3512 quality controlled MRI from 9 cohorts of subjects covering the entire lifespan, including 415 MRI from ADNI1, ADNI2 and AIBL for Alzheimer's disease patients). Then, we validated dynamic models based on cross-sectional data using external longitudinal data. Finally, we assessed the sequential divergence between normal aging and Alzheimer's disease volumetric trajectories and described the following staging of brain atrophy progression in Alzheimer's disease: (i) hippocampus and amygdala; (ii) middle temporal gyrus; (iii) entorhinal cortex, parahippocampal cortex and other temporal areas; (iv) striatum and thalamus and (v) middle frontal, cingular, parietal, insular cortices and pallidum. We concluded that this MRI scheme of atrophy progression in Alzheimer's disease was close but did not entirely overlap with Braak staging of tauopathy, with a 'reverse chronology' between limbic and entorhinal stages. Alzheimer's disease structural progression may be associated with local tau accumulation but may also be related to axonal degeneration in remote sites and other limbic-predominant associated proteinopathies.

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

APA 7th

Planche, V., Manjon, J. V., Mansencal, B., Lanuza, E., Tourdias, T., Catheline, G., et al. (2022). Structural progression of Alzheimer's disease over decades: the MRI staging scheme. Brain communications. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcac109

Vancouver

Planche V, Manjon JV, Mansencal B, Lanuza E, Tourdias T, Catheline G, et al. Structural progression of Alzheimer's disease over decades: the MRI staging scheme. Brain communications. 2022. doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcac109. PMID: 35592489.

BibTeX

@article{planche2022-35592489,
  author  = {Planche, V. and Manjon, J. V. and Mansencal, B. and Lanuza, E. and Tourdias, T. and Catheline, G. and Coupé, P.},
  title   = {{Structural progression of Alzheimer's disease over decades: the MRI staging scheme}},
  journal = {Brain communications},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1093/braincomms/fcac109},
  pmid    = {35592489},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcac109}
}

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.

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 lists 3,512 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
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

We concluded that this MRI scheme of atrophy progression in Alzheimer's disease was close but did not entirely overlap with Braak staging of tauopathy, with a 'reverse chronology' between limbic and entorhinal stages.
Alzheimer's disease structural progression may be associated with local tau accumulation but may also be related to axonal degeneration in remote sites and other limbic-predominant associated proteinopathies.

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Participants3,512
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 67/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain communications)
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	3 / 5	2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	3,512 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 35592489)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	39 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100.
Total	67 / 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 Disease mechanisms from nearby years

Also in Disease mechanisms

128 studies in the library are filed under Disease mechanisms with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Disease mechanisms hub.

Similar studies

More on Disease mechanisms

See all studies in Disease mechanisms →