4.5 Article

Construction of a 18F-FDG PET normative database of Japanese healthy elderly subjects and its application to demented and mild cognitive impairment patients

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.2346

关键词

F-18-FDG PET; normative database; Alzheimer's disease; dementia with Lewy bodies; frontotemporal lobar degeneration; mild cognitive impairment

资金

  1. Anti-aging Research Center of Juntendo University School of Medicine
  2. Ogasawara Foundation for the Promotion of Science and Engineering
  3. Nihon Medi-Physics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To construct a E-18-EDG PET normative database of Japanese healthy elderly subjects and to apply it to demented and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients. Methods: Seventy-seven Japanese normal volunteers from 41 to 84 years of age (36 males and 41 females) who underwent clinical, neuropsychological, and MRI examinations were selected. In these subjects, F-18-FDG PET/CT scans were performed, F-18-FDG PET images were analyzed using the 3D-SSP program, and a normative database for cerebral glucose metabolism was constructed. Then, F-18-FDG PET images from 14 demented and MCI patients were evaluated based on the normative database. Results: The 77 healthy elderly subjects were divided into three groups according to their age. In these subjects, the difference in glucose metabolism between males and females was minimal in contrast, glucose metabolism showed a weak reciprocal correlation with aging in several cerebral regions. The 3D-SSP images of 14 demented and MCI patients based on the age-matched F-18-FDG PET normative database showed decreased patterns of glucose metabolism similar to those of previous studies on dementia diseases and MCI. Conclusions: An age-matched normative database can be applied to the evaluation of single subjects, and the application of a mixed database of males and females is viable. Normative databases are useful for detecting dementia diseases and their MCI. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据