Cited by 66Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Based on the network degeneration hypothesis: Separating individual patients with different neurodegenerative syndromes in a preliminary hybrid PET/MR study

Open access
Tahmasian, Masoud, Shao, Junming, Meng, Chun, Grimmer, Timo, Diehl-Schmid, Janine, Yousefi, Behrooz H., Förster, Stefan, Riedl, Valentin +2 more·2016·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The network degeneration hypothesis (NDH) of neurodegenerative syndromes suggests that pathologic brain changes distribute primarily along distinct brain networks, which are characteristic for different syndromes. Brain changes of neurodegenerative syndromes can be characterized in vivo by different imaging modalities. Our aim was to test the hypothesis whether multimodal imaging based on the NDH separates individual patients with different neurodegenerative syndromes. METHODS: Twenty patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) and 20 patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia [bvFTD, n = 11], semantic dementia [SD, n = 4], or progressive nonfluent aphasia [PNFA, n = 5]) underwent simultaneous MRI and (18)F-FDG PET in a hybrid PET/MR scanner. The 3 outcome measures were voxelwise values of degree centrality as a surrogate for regional functional connectivity, glucose metabolism as a surrogate for regional metabolism, and volumetric-based morphometry as a surrogate for regional gray matter volume. Outcome measures were derived from predefined core regions of 4 intrinsic networks based on the NDH, which have been demonstrated to be characteristic for AD, bvFTD, SD, and PNFA, respectively. Subsequently, we applied support vector machine to classify individual patients via combined imaging measures, and results were evaluated by leave-one-out cross-validation. RESULTS: On the basis of multimodal voxelwise regional patterns, classification accuracies for separating patients with different neurodegenerative syndromes were 77.5% for AD versus others, 82.5% for bvFTD versus others, 97.5% for SD versus others, and 87.5% for PNFA versus others. Multimodal classification results were significantly superior to unimodal approaches. CONCLUSION: Our finding provides initial evidence that the combination of regional metabolism, functional connectivity, and gray matter volume, which were derived from disease characteristic networks, separates individual patients with different neurodegenerative syndromes. Preliminary results suggest that employing multimodal imaging guided by the NDH may generate promising biomarkers of neurodegenerative syndromes.

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 · 10.2967/jnumed.115.165464

Cites

46 of 46 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Tahmasian M, Eggers C, Riedl V, Sorg C, Drzezga A. Utilization of hybrid PET/ MR in neuroimaging. Basic Clin Neurosci. 2015;6:143-146.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tahmasian, M., Shao, J., Meng, C., Grimmer, T., Diehl-Schmid, J., Yousefi, B. H., Förster, S., Riedl, V., Drzezga, A., & Sorg, C.
Affiliations
  • TUM Klinikum (DE)
  • University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2015-11-19
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
410-415
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2294942678
Cited by
66
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6
FWCI
5.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, semantic dementia, progressive nonfluent aphasia, multimodal neuroimaging, 18F-FDG PET, functional connectivity, degree centrality, regional glucose metabolism, gray matter volume, patient classification, biomarkers
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Aphasia, Broca, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Nerve Net, Predictive Value of Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Radiopharmaceuticals, Neurodegenerative Diseases, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Positron-Emission Tomography, Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration, Multimodal 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