Cited by 172Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Antemortem MRI based STructural Abnormality iNDex (STAND)-scores correlate with postmortem Braak neurofibrillary tangle stage

Open access
Vemuri, Prashanthi, Whitwell, Jennifer L., Kantarci, Kejal, Josephs, Keith A., Parisi, Joseph E., Shiung, Maria S., Knopman, David S., Boeve, Bradley F. +3 more·2008·NeuroImage

Abstract

The clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) does not exactly match the pathological findings at autopsy in every subject. Therefore, in-vivo imaging measures, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) that reflect underlying pathology, would be clinically useful independent supplementary measures of disease stage. We have developed an algorithm that extracts atrophy information from individual patient's 3D MRI scans and assigns a STructural Abnormality iNDex (STAND)-score to the scan based on the degree of atrophy in comparison to patterns extracted from a large library of clinically well characterized AD and CN (cognitively normal) subject's MRI scans. STAND-scores can be adjusted for demographics to give adjusted-STAND (aSTAND)-scores which are >0 for subjects with brains identified as abnormal by the algorithm. Since histopathological findings are considered to represent the "ground truth", our objective was to assess the sensitivity of aSTAND-scores to pathological AD staging. This was done by comparing antemortem MRI based aSTAND-scores with postmortem grading of disease severity in 101 subjects who had both antemortem MRI and postmortem Braak neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) staging. We found a rank correlation of 0.62 (p<0.0001) between Braak NFT stage and aSTAND-scores. The results show that optimally extracted information from MRI scans such as STAND-scores accurately capture the severity of neuronal pathology and can be used as an independent approximate surrogate marker for in-vivo pathological staging as well as for early identification of AD in individual subjects.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.05.012

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Antemortem MRI has previously been found to correlate well with measures of cognitive deterioration and post-mortem Braak staging of Alzheimer's disease.

    “As well as revealing signs of atrophy, which can inform differential diagnosis of the disease, antemortem MRI has previously been found to correlate well with measures of cognitive deterioration and post-mortem Braak staging of the disease (Csernansky et al., 2004, Jack et al., 2002, Vemuri et al., 2008, Whitwell et al., 2008).”

    From In vivo imaging of tau pathology using multi-parametric quantitative MRI (2015) · cites this paper as Vemuri et al., 2008

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Killiany RJ, Gomez-Isla T, Moss M, Kikinis R, Sandor T, Jolesz F, Tanzi R, Jones K, Hyman BT, Albert MS. Use of structural magnetic resonance imaging to predict who will get Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol. 2000;47:430–439. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vemuri, P., Whitwell, J. L., Kantarci, K., Josephs, K. A., Parisi, J. E., Shiung, M. S., Knopman, D. S., Boeve, B. F., Petersen, R. C., Dickson, D. W., & Jack, C. R.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Jack, Clifford R.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-08
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
559-567
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1990502495
Cited by
172
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 13
FWCI
9.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG11378, K23AG030935, P50‐AG16574, R01 AG06786, U01AG006786, R01AG011378, P50AG016574)
  • National Center for Research Resources (KL2RR024151, K12RR24151, C06RR018898)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, neurofibrillary tangles, Braak staging, brain atrophy, postmortem neuropathology, disease staging, early detection of Alzheimer's disease
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Brain, Diagnosis, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Neurofibrillary Tangles, Imaging, Three-Dimensional

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