4.3 Article

Cognitive deficits in multiple sclerosis: correlations with T2 changes in normal appearing brain tissue

期刊

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 125, 期 5, 页码 338-344

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2011.01574.x

关键词

cognitive impairment; magnetic resonance imaging; multiple sclerosis; T2 estimates

资金

  1. Danish Multiple Sclerosis Society [004-012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Although disease load in multiple sclerosis (MS) often is based on T2 lesion volumes, the changes in T2 of normal appearing brain tissue (NABT) are rarely considered. By means of magnetic resonance, (MR) we retrospectively investigated whether T2 changes in NABT explain part of the cognitive impairment seen in MS and constitute a supplement to traditional measurement of T2 lesion volume. Materials and Methods - Fifty patients with clinically definite MS were included (38 women, 12 men). Patients were MR scanned, neuropsychologically tested, and evaluated clinically with the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Impairment Scale (MSIS). Voxel- wise T2 estimates and total T2 lesion volume were tested for correlations with eight cognitive domains, a general cognitive dysfunction factor (CDF), and the two clinical scales. Results - We found distinct clusters of voxels with T2 estimates correlating with CDF, mental processing speed, complex motor speed, verbal fluency, and MSIS. A significant negative correlation was found between total lesion volume and CDF (r =) 0.34, P = 0.02), verbal intelligence (r =) 0.40, P = 0.005), mental processing speed (r =) 0.34, P = 0.03), visual problem solving (r =) 0.40, P = 0.01), and complex motor speed (r =) 0.39, P = 0.01). No significant correlation was detected between total lesion load and the clinical measures EDSS and MSIS. Conclusion - Our results suggest that even in the NABT MR detects changes likely to be associated with an underlying pathology and possibly contributes to the cognitive impairment in MS.

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

4.3
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