Neurology · 2013
Principal component analysis of PiB distribution in Parkinson and Alzheimer diseases.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Campbell Meghan C, Markham Joanne, Flores Hubert, Hartlein Johanna M, Goate Alison M, Cairns Nigel J, Videen Tom O, Perlmutter Joel S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To use principal component analyses (PCA) of Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) PET imaging to determine whether the pattern of in vivo β-amyloid (Aβ) in Parkinson disease (PD) with cognitive impairment is similar to the pattern found in symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD).
METHODS: PiB PET scans were obtained from participants with PD with cognitive impairment (n = 53), participants with symptomatic AD (n = 35), and age-matched controls (n = 67). All were assessed using the Clinical Dementia Rating and APOE genotype was determined in 137 participants. PCA was used to (1) determine the PiB binding pattern in AD, (2) determine a possible unique PD pattern, and (3) directly compare the PiB binding patterns in PD and AD groups.
RESULTS: The first 2 principal components (PC1 and PC2) significantly separated the AD and control participants (p < 0.001). Participants with PD with cognitive impairment also were significantly different from participants with symptomatic AD on both components (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference between PD and controls on either component. Even those participants with PD with elevated mean cortical binding potentials were significantly different from participants with AD on both components.
CONCLUSION: Using PCA, we demonstrated that participants with PD with cognitive impairment do not exhibit the same PiB binding pattern as participants with AD. These data suggest that Aβ deposition may play a different pathophysiologic role in the cognitive impairment of PD compared to that in AD.
METHODS: PiB PET scans were obtained from participants with PD with cognitive impairment (n = 53), participants with symptomatic AD (n = 35), and age-matched controls (n = 67). All were assessed using the Clinical Dementia Rating and APOE genotype was determined in 137 participants. PCA was used to (1) determine the PiB binding pattern in AD, (2) determine a possible unique PD pattern, and (3) directly compare the PiB binding patterns in PD and AD groups.
RESULTS: The first 2 principal components (PC1 and PC2) significantly separated the AD and control participants (p < 0.001). Participants with PD with cognitive impairment also were significantly different from participants with symptomatic AD on both components (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference between PD and controls on either component. Even those participants with PD with elevated mean cortical binding potentials were significantly different from participants with AD on both components.
CONCLUSION: Using PCA, we demonstrated that participants with PD with cognitive impairment do not exhibit the same PiB binding pattern as participants with AD. These data suggest that Aβ deposition may play a different pathophysiologic role in the cognitive impairment of PD compared to that in AD.