Cited by 111Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diffusion Tensor Imaging in Patients With Adult Chronic Idiopathic Hydrocephalus

Abstract

Objective Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) parameters were investigated in patients with chronic idiopathic hydrocephalus to evaluate microstructural changes of brain tissue caused by chronic ventricular dilatation. Methods Eleven patients fulfilling the criteria for possible or probable idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and 10 healthy control subjects underwent MRI at 3 Tesla, including DTI with 12 gradient directions. Patients were scanned before lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) withdrawal tests. Differences in fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) between patients and controls were assessed using 2 different methods: manual definition of regions of interest and a fully automated method, TBSS (Tract-Based Spatial Statistics). DTI parameters were correlated with clinical findings. Results Compared with the control group, patients with chronic idiopathic hydrocephalus had significantly higher MD values in both the periventricular corticospinal tract (CST) and the corpus callosum (CC), whereas FA values were significantly higher in the CST but lower in the CC. DTI parameters of the CST correlated with the severity of gait disturbances. Conclusion Microstructural changes in periventricular functionally relevant white matter structures (CSF, CC) in chronic idiopathic hydrocephalus can be visualized using DTI. Further studies should investigate the change of DTI parameters after CSF shunting and its relation to neurologic outcome.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1227/01.neu.0000367801.35654.ec

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 111

Metadata

Authors
Hattingen, E., Jurcoane, A., Melber, J., Blasel, S., Zanella, F. E., Neumann-Haefelin, T., & Singer, O. C.
Affiliations
Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Venue
Neurosurgery
Published
2010-05
Volume
66
Issue
5
Pages
917-924
ISSN
0148-396X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984806874
Cited by
111
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
8.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurosurgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Cerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Keywords
idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus, diffusion tensor imaging, fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, white matter microstructure, corticospinal tract, corpus callosum, gait disturbance, cerebrospinal fluid shunting, tract-based spatial statistics
MeSH terms
Aged, Brain, Chronic Disease, Humans, Hydrocephalus, Normal Pressure, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Middle Aged, Anisotropy, Diffusion Tensor Imaging

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