Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Within-patient correspondence of amyloid-β and intrinsic network connectivity in Alzheimer's disease
Myers N, Pasquini L, Göttler J, Grimmer T, Koch K, Ortner M, Neitzel J, Mühlau M et al.. Brain : a journal of neurology, 2014-04-26
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
However, the observed spatial extent of amyloid-β exceeds these tightly circumscribed areas, suggesting that previous studies may have underestimated the negative impact of amyloid-β on intrinsic connectivity. At the global network level, we found that amyloid-β and intrinsic connectivity patterns were positively correlated in the default mode and several fronto-parietal attention networks, confirming that amyloid-β aggregates in areas of high intrinsic connectivity on a within-network basis. Our findings indicate that the negative impact of amyloid-β on intrinsic connectivity in heteromodal networks is underestimated by conventional analyses. Moreover, our results provide first within-patient evidence for correspondent patterns of amyloid-β and intrinsic connectivity, with the distribution of amyloid-β pathology following functional connectivity gradients within and across intrinsic networks.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Myers, N., Pasquini, L., Göttler, J., Grimmer, T., Koch, K., Ortner, M., et al. (2014). Within-patient correspondence of amyloid-β and intrinsic network connectivity in Alzheimer's disease. Brain : a journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu103
Vancouver
Myers N, Pasquini L, Göttler J, Grimmer T, Koch K, Ortner M, et al. Within-patient correspondence of amyloid-β and intrinsic network connectivity in Alzheimer's disease. Brain : a journal of neurology. 2014. doi:10.1093/brain/awu103. PMID: 24771519.
BibTeX
@article{myers2014-24771519,
author = {Myers, N. and Pasquini, L. and Göttler, J. and Grimmer, T. and Koch, K. and Ortner, M. and Neitzel, J. and Mühlau, M. and others},
title = {{Within-patient correspondence of amyloid-β and intrinsic network connectivity in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Brain : a journal of neurology},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1093/brain/awu103},
pmid = {24771519},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu103}
}
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
- However, the observed spatial extent of amyloid-β exceeds these tightly circumscribed areas, suggesting that previous studies may have underestimated the negative impact of amyloid-β on intrinsic connectivity.
- At the global network level, we found that amyloid-β and intrinsic connectivity patterns were positively correlated in the default mode and several fronto-parietal attention networks, confirming that amyloid-β aggregates in areas of high intrinsic connectivity on a within-network basis.
- Our findings indicate that the negative impact of amyloid-β on intrinsic connectivity in heteromodal networks is underestimated by conventional analyses.
- Moreover, our results provide first within-patient evidence for correspondent patterns of amyloid-β and intrinsic connectivity, with the distribution of amyloid-β pathology following functional connectivity gradients within and across intrinsic networks.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain : a journal of neurology) |
| 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 | 2014 — 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 24771519) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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.