Distinctive alterations of the cingulum bundle during aging and Alzheimer’s disease
Abstract
Brain imaging studies have revealed frontal disruption during aging and parieto-temporal disruption during Alzheimer's disease (AD). The present study aims at developing a specific method based on precise anatomical landmarks for assessing the integrity all along the course of the cingulum bundle, so as to determine if it presents the classical aging and AD dissociation. Five regions of interest (ROIs) were placed on fractional anisotropy (FA) maps all along the cingulum in 15 young (Gyoung), 15 70-year-old (Gold), and 15 AD subjects (Galz). An age-related decrease of FA occurred in the anterior part of the bundle. Moreover, a specific alteration of the supero-posterior region of the cingulum during AD was observed since mean FA values as well as mean number of fibers were significantly decreased in Galz compared to Gold and Gyoung. This multiple ROIs placement allows for revealing distinctive alterations of the cingulum bundle during aging and AD, which could constitute the anatomical basis for the distinctive functional disconnection recently described in the literature using functional connectivity at rest.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some evidence is consistent with an age-related gradient along the long axis of the cingulum, in which frontal parts of the bundle appear most affected.
“Some of the evidence is consistent with an age-related gradient along the long axis of the cingulum, in which frontal parts of the bundle appear most affected (Catheline et al., 2010; Mårtensson et al., 2018; Sibilia et al., 2017; Yoon et al., 2008; see for review Chua et al., 2008).”
From The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction (2018) · cites this paper as Catheline et al., 2010
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 71 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Catheline, G., Periot, O., Amirault, M., Braun, M., Dartigues, J.-F., Auriacombe, S., & Allard, M.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Inserm (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Catheline, Gwénaëlle
- Venue
- Neurobiology of Aging
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1582-1592
- ISSN
- 0197-4580 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2131422138
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neurobiology of Aging (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Keywords
- cingulum, Alzheimer's disease, brain aging, fractional anisotropy, white matter integrity, anatomical landmarks, frontal lobe, functional disconnection, white matter microstructure
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Physiological, Adult, Aged, Aging, Alzheimer Disease, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
