Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
Comparison between LE (A) and HE (B) prodromal AD patients and education-matched controls. Height significance threshold: P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons (false discovery rate), at both peak and cluster levels. Figure displays regions of significant difference, color-graded in terms of z values. Talairach coordinates and further details are provided in Supplemental Table 2.
- FIGURE 2.
Comparison between LE and HE prodromal AD patients. Height thresholds: uncorrected P < 0.001 at peak level; P < 0.05 FDR-corrected at cluster level. These 2 clusters were finally saved and used as ROIs, one with ROI depression (A, LE > HE) and another with ROI compensation (B, HE > LE). Talairach coordinates and further details are provided in Supplemental Table 2 and in Table 3.
- FIGURE 3.
Voxelwise interregional correlation analysis of ROI depression in LE (A) and HE (B) prodromal AD patients. Talairach coordinates and further details are provided in Table 4.
- FIGURE 4.
Interregional correlation analysis of ROI compensation in LE (A) and HE (B) prodromal AD patients. Talairach coordinates and further details are provided in Table 5.
- FIGURE 5.
Interregional correlation analysis of ROI compensation in LE (A) and HE (B) controls. Other figure details are provided in legend to Figure 2. Talairach coordinates and further details are provided in Supplemental Table 3.
- FIGURE 6.
Point-by-point comparison of distribution of results of voxelwise interregional correlation analysis of ROI compensation in HE prodromal AD patient and HE control. Brain regions that significantly correlated with ROI compensation are superimposed on MR scan (yellow in HE prodromal AD patient and blue in HE control).
Tables
Characteristic HE control (n = 48) LE control (n = 42) HE prodromal AD (n = 28) LE prodromal AD (n = 36) Age (y) 68.6 ± 6.5 65.4 ± 5.9 71.0 ± 8.3 73.5 ± 8.0 Sex Men 25 14 18 13 Women 23 28 10 23 Education (y) 14.4 ± 2.2 7.8 ± 1.9 15.1 ± 2.4 7.0 ± 1.0 Follow-up (mo) 16.1 ± 18.2 19.9 ± 17.1 24.3 ± 18.0 20.1 ± 14.0 Baseline MMSE 29.4 ± 1.0 29.1 ± 1.4 27.2 ± 1.3 26.9 ± 1.7 Follow-up MMSE 29.1 ± 1.2 29.0 ± 1.6 24.1 ± 2.2 23.9 ± 1.9 Data are mean ± SD.
Group HE prodromal AD (n = 28) LE prodromal AD (n = 36) P Immediate recall −1.83 ± 1.00 −1.25 ± 0.99 NS Delayed recall −2.06 ± 1.07 −1.89 ± 0.74 NS Visuoconstruction −0.53 ± 1.94 −0.48 ± 1.76 NS Verbal fluency −0.16 ± 1.06 0.47 ± 1.38 NS Attention −0.51 ± 2.55 −0.61 ± 2.01 NS Executive function −1.35 ± 2.08 −1.42 ± 1.10 NS NS = not significant.
Data are mean ± SD.
- TABLE 3
Results of 18F-FDG Brain PET Comparison Between HE and LE Prodromal AD Patients, with ROI Compensation
Peak level Cluster level Talairach coordinates Analysis Cluster extent Corrected P Cortical region Maximum z score x y z Cortical region BA LE > HE 1,412 0.007 L occipital 4.4 −42 −74 −10 Fusiform gyrus 19 L temporal 3.69 −63 −60 −2 Inferior temporal gyrus 37 L temporal 3.25 −50 −73 11 Middle temporal gyrus 39 L occipital 3.21 −46 −81 10 Middle occipital gyrus 19 L occipital 3.06 −26 −84 1 Middle occipital gyrus 18 HE > LE 693 0.046 R frontal 3.34 48 35 −3 Inferior frontal gyrus 47 R frontal 3.15 50 29 2 Inferior frontal gyrus 45 R frontal 3.01 44 38 20 Middle frontal gyrus 46 R frontal 2.8 50 32 8 Inferior frontal gyrus 46 R frontal 2.77 40 53 16 Superior frontal gyrus 10 R frontal 2.68 34 13 −12 Inferior frontal gyrus 13 R frontal 2.63 42 49 16 Middle frontal gyrus 46 R frontal 2.5 30 9 −17 Inferior frontal gyrus 47 P values of <0.001 (uncorrected at voxel level) and <0.05 (FDR-corrected for multiple comparisons at cluster level) were accepted as statistically significant. In cluster level section, reported for each statistically significant cluster are number of voxels, corrected P value, and cortical region where cluster was found. In peak level section, reported for each significant cluster are z score, peak coordinates, corresponding cortical region, and BA.
- TABLE 4
Results of Interregional Correlation Analysis of ROI Depression in LE and HE Prodromal AD Patients
Peak level Cluster level Talairach coordinates Analysis Cluster extent Corrected P Cortical region Maximum z score x y z Cortical region BA LE 731 0.045 L occipital 3.72 −48 −77 9 Middle occipital gyrus 19 L temporal 3.68 −57 −64 5 Middle temporal gyrus 37 L temporal 3.61 −42 −51 −11 Fusiform gyrus 37 R occipital 3.50 4 −86 34 Cuneus 19 R occipital 3.44 6 −96 23 Cuneus 18 R occipital 3.22 20 −74 33 Cuneus 7 HE 678 0.03 L temporal 4.32 −61 −62 −5 Inferior temporal gyrus 37 L temporal 3.88 −50 −76 −3 Inferior temporal gyrus 19 L temporal 3.64 −48 −73 17 Middle temporal gyrus 39 L occipital 3.30 −44 −76 26 Superior occipital gyrus 19 P values of <0.001 (uncorrected at voxel level) and <0.05 (FDR-corrected for multiple comparisons at cluster level) were accepted as statistically significant. In cluster level section, reported for each statistically significant cluster are number of voxels, corrected P value, and cortical region where cluster was found. In peak level section, reported for each significant cluster are z score, peak coordinates, corresponding cortical region, and BA.
- TABLE 5
Results of Interregional Correlation Analysis of ROI Compensation in LE and HE Prodromal AD Patients
Peak level Cluster level Talairach coordinates Analysis Cluster extent Corrected P Cortical region Maximum z score x y z Cortical region BA LE 1,286 0.026 R frontal 4.31 22 28 −18 Middle frontal gyrus 11 R frontal 4.23 30 30 −15 Inferior frontal gyrus 47 R frontal 4.12 18 17 −11 Subcallosal gyrus 47 R frontal 4.1 52 28 6 Inferior frontal gyrus 45 R frontal 3.97 42 49 16 Middle frontal gyrus 46 R frontal 3.95 48 29 −2 Inferior frontal gyrus 45 R frontal 3.9 46 41 4 Inferior frontal gyrus 46 R frontal 3.87 38 31 −12 Inferior frontal gyrus 47 R limbic 3.81 8 34 −12 Anterior cingulate 32 HE 11,303 0.0001 L frontal 17.2 −50 3 13 Precentral gyrus 44 L occipital 16 −16 −68 2 Lingual gyrus 18 R frontal 15.9 30 −13 47 Middle frontal gyrus 6 R frontal 15.6 36 −8 37 Precentral gyrus 6 R frontal 14.3 22 16 49 Superior frontal gyrus 8 L limbic 8.84 −18 −47 −4 Parahippocampal gyrus 19 L temporal 8.22 −40 8 −31 Superior temporal gyrus 38 L temporal 5.61 −61 −37 −8 Middle temporal gyrus 21 L temporal 5.39 −63 −24 −21 Inferior temporal gyrus 20 L parietal 5.12 −20 −46 52 Precuneus 7 L parietal 4.96 −18 −47 36 Precuneus 31 R temporal 4.90 55 −21 −23 Fusiform gyrus 20 R temporal 4.80 59 −11 −18 Inferior temporal gyrus 21 R frontal 4.78 10 54 21 Superior frontal gyrus 9 R frontal 4.4 22 33 37 Middle frontal gyrus 8 L sublobar 3.96 −30 10 −2 Claustrum R temporal 3.78 48 17 −13 Superior temporal gyrus 38 2,000 0.003 L cerebellum 14.6 −36 −54 −36 Cerebellar tonsil P values of <0.001 (uncorrected at voxel level) and <0.05 (FDR-corrected for multiple comparisons at cluster level) were accepted as statistically significant. In cluster level section, reported for each statistically significant cluster are number of voxels, corrected P value, and cortical region where cluster was found. In peak level section, reported for each significant cluster are z score, peak coordinates, corresponding cortical region, and BA.
Supplemental Data
Files in this Data Supplement:
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Enhanced prefrontal nicotinic signaling as evidence of active compensation in Alzheimers disease models
- Amyloid PET in Dementia Syndromes: A Chinese Multicenter Study
- Left frontal cortex connectivity underlies cognitive reserve in prodromal Alzheimer disease
- The impact of bilingualism on brain reserve and metabolic connectivity in Alzheimer's dementia
- Interaction between years of education and APOE {varepsilon}4 status on frontal and temporal metabolism
- Brain fluorodeoxyglucose PET in adrenoleukodystrophy