4.6 Article

Apathy and White Matter Integrity in Alzheimer's Disease: A Whole Brain Analysis with Tract-Based Spatial Statistics

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053493

关键词

-

资金

  1. Next Generation BioGreen 21 Program, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea [PJ007186]
  2. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  3. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2012R1A1A2042339]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A1A2042339] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate the microstructural alterations of white matter (WM) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients with apathy and to observe the relationships with the severity of apathy. Sixty drug-naive subjects took part in this study (30 apathetic and 30 nonapathetic subjects with AD). The loss of integrity in WM was compared in AD patients with and without apathy through measurement of fractional anisotropy (FA) using by tract-based spatial statistics (TBSS). In addition, we explored the correlation pattern between FA values and the severity of apathy in AD patients with apathy. The apathy group had significantly reduced FA values (p(corrected)<0.05) in the genu of the corpus callosum compared to the nonapathy group. The severity of apathy was negatively correlated with FA values of the left anterior and posterior cingulum, right superior longitudinal fasciculus, splenium, body and genu of the corpus callosum and bilateral uncinate fasciculusin the apathy group (p(corrected)<0.05). This study was the first to explore FA values in whole brain WM in AD patients with apathy. The findings of these microstructural alterations of WM may be the key to the understanding of underlying neurobiological mechanism and clinical significances of apathy in AD.

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

4.6
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