↓ Skip to main content

The utility of age-specific cut-offs for visual rating of medial temporal atrophy in classifying Alzheimer's disease, MCI and cognitively normal elderly subjects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The utility of age-specific cut-offs for visual rating of medial temporal atrophy in classifying Alzheimer's disease, MCI and cognitively normal elderly subjects
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2013.00047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ranjan Duara, David A. Loewenstein, Qian Shen, Warren Barker, Daniel Varon, Maria T. Greig, Rosie Curiel, Joscelyn Agron, Isael Santos, Huntington Potter

Abstract

Background: New research criteria for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the mild cognitive impairment stage (MCI-AD) incorporate biomarkers to assign a level of certainty to the diagnosis. Structural MRI is widely available but greatly under-utilized for assessing atrophy of structures affected in early AD, such as the hippocampus (HP), because the quantification of HP volumes (HP-v) requires special expertise, and normative values have not been established. Methods: Elderly subjects (n =273) from the Florida ADRC were classified as having no cognitive impairment (cognitively normal, CN), amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) or AD. Volumes for the hippocampus (HP-v) were measured on structural MRI scans. A validated visual rating system for measuring medial temporal atrophy (VRS-MTA), including hippocampal, entorhinal cortex and perirhinal cortex atrophy was employed. The participants were subdivided into younger (less than or equal to 75 years of age) and older (greater than 75 years of age) subgroups. Results: Volumetric and VRS-MTA measures were equivalent in predicting classification of CN vs. aMCI for older (area under the receiver operator curves [aROC]: 0.652 vs. 0.723) and younger subjects (aROC: 0.764 vs. 0.736). However, for younger AD subjects, aROC values were significantly higher for VRS-MTA measures (0.920) than for volumetric measures (0.847). Relative to HP-v, VRS-MTA score was significantly more correlated to impairment on a range of memory tests and was more associated with progression of aMCI to AD than HP-v. Conclusion: Structural MRI with VRS-MTA assessment can serve as a biomarker for supporting the diagnosis of MCI-AD. Age-adjusted VRS-MTA scores are at least as effective as HP-v for distinguishing aMCI and AD from CN and for predicting progression from aMCI to AD. VRS-MTA is convenient for use in the clinic as well as for clinical trials and can readily be incorporated into a standardized radiological report.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 2 3%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 69 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Master 9 12%
Other 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 39%
Psychology 9 12%
Engineering 4 5%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 17 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2013.
All research outputs
#15,279,577
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,572
of 4,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,551
of 280,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#53
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,737 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.