Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands; Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, the Netherlands.
Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands; Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, the Netherlands.
Neuroimage Clin. 2020;27:102303. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102303. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
Anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion MRI and resting state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) have been used for Alzheimer's disease (AD) classification. These scans are typically used to build models for discriminating AD patients from control subjects, but it is not clear if these models can also discriminate AD in diverse clinical populations as found in memory clinics. To study this, we trained MRI-based AD classification models on a single centre data set consisting of AD patients (N = 76) and controls (N = 173), and used these models to assign AD scores to subjective memory complainers (N = 67), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients (N = 61), and AD patients (N = 61) from a multi-centre memory clinic data set. The anatomical MRI scans were used to calculate grey matter density, subcortical volumes and cortical thickness, the diffusion MRI scans were used to calculate fractional anisotropy, mean, axial and radial diffusivity, and the rs-fMRI scans were used to calculate functional connectivity between resting state networks and amplitude of low frequency fluctuations. Within the multi-centre memory clinic data set we removed scan site differences prior to applying the models. For all models, on average, the AD patients were assigned the highest AD scores, followed by MCI patients, and later followed by SMC subjects. The anatomical MRI models performed best, and the best performing anatomical MRI measure was grey matter density, separating SMC subjects from MCI patients with an AUC of 0.69, MCI patients from AD patients with an AUC of 0.70, and SMC patients from AD patients with an AUC of 0.86. The diffusion MRI models did not generalise well to the memory clinic data, possibly because of large scan site differences. The functional connectivity model separated SMC subjects and MCI patients relatively good (AUC = 0.66). The multimodal MRI model did not improve upon the anatomical MRI model. In conclusion, we showed that the grey matter density model generalises best to memory clinic subjects. When also considering the fact that grey matter density generally performs well in AD classification studies, this feature is probably the best MRI-based feature for AD diagnosis in clinical practice.
解剖磁共振成像(MRI)、扩散 MRI 和静息态功能 MRI(rs-fMRI)已被用于阿尔茨海默病(AD)分类。这些扫描通常用于构建区分 AD 患者和对照组的模型,但尚不清楚这些模型是否也可以区分记忆诊所中发现的不同临床人群中的 AD。为了研究这一点,我们在一个由 AD 患者(N=76)和对照组(N=173)组成的单一中心数据集上训练了基于 MRI 的 AD 分类模型,并使用这些模型为来自多中心记忆诊所数据集的主观记忆抱怨者(N=67)、轻度认知障碍(MCI)患者(N=61)和 AD 患者(N=61)分配 AD 评分。解剖 MRI 扫描用于计算灰质密度、皮质下体积和皮质厚度,扩散 MRI 扫描用于计算各向异性分数、均值、轴向和径向扩散率,rs-fMRI 扫描用于计算静息状态网络之间的功能连接和低频波动的幅度。在多中心记忆诊所数据集内,我们在应用模型之前消除了扫描部位的差异。对于所有模型,平均而言,AD 患者被分配的 AD 评分最高,其次是 MCI 患者,其次是 SMC 患者。解剖 MRI 模型表现最佳,最佳的解剖 MRI 测量值是灰质密度,将 SMC 患者与 MCI 患者区分开来的 AUC 为 0.69,将 MCI 患者与 AD 患者区分开来的 AUC 为 0.70,将 SMC 患者与 AD 患者区分开来的 AUC 为 0.86。扩散 MRI 模型不能很好地推广到记忆诊所数据,可能是由于扫描部位差异较大。功能连接模型将 SMC 患者和 MCI 患者区分开来的效果相对较好(AUC=0.66)。多模态 MRI 模型并没有比解剖 MRI 模型有更好的表现。总之,我们表明灰质密度模型对记忆诊所患者的泛化效果最好。当还考虑到灰质密度在 AD 分类研究中表现良好的事实时,该特征可能是临床实践中 AD 诊断的最佳 MRI 特征。