Характеристика повреждения тканей внутри и вокруг парамагнитных позвонков при многоразовом склерозе.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mohebbi Maryam, Reeves Jack A, Jakimovski Dejan, Bartnik Alexander, Bergsland Niels, Salman Fahad, Schweser Ferdinand, Weinstock-Guttman Bianca, Zivadinov Robert, Dwyer Michael G
Аннотация
Оригинал публикации
Diffusion- and Tractography-Based Characterization of Tissue Damage Within and Surrounding Paramagnetic Rim Lesions in Multiple Sclerosis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Paramagnetic rim lesions (PRLs) are an imaging biomarker of chronic inflammation in MS that are associated with more aggressive disease. However, the precise tissue characteristics and extent of their damage, particularly with regard to connected axonal tracts, are incompletely understood. Quantitative diffusion tissue measurements and fiber tractography can provide a more complete picture of these phenomena.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifteen people with MS were enrolled in this study. Quantitative susceptibility mapping and DWI were acquired on a 3T MRI scanner. PRLs were identified in 49 (43%) subjects. Diffusion tractography was then used to identify nearby PRL-connected versus non-PRL connected tracts and PRL-connected versus nonconnected surrounding tracts. DWI metrics, including fractional anisotropy (FA), quantitative anisotropy (QA), mean diffusivity, axial diffusivity, radial diffusivity, isotropy, and restricted diffusion imaging, were compared between these tracts and within PRLs and non-PRL lesions themselves.
RESULTS: Tissue within PRLs had significantly lower FA than tissue within non-PRL T2 lesions (P = .04). Tracts connected to PRLs exhibited significantly lower FA (P < .001), higher restricted diffusion imaging (P = .02, and higher Iso values (P = .007) than tracts connected to non-PRL T2 lesions. Only QA was different between tracts connected to PRLs and nonconnected surrounding tracts (P = .003).
CONCLUSIONS: PRLs are more destructive both within themselves and to surrounding tissue. This damage appears more spatially than axonally mediated.