2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103138
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Motor cortical patterns of upper motor neuron pathology in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A 3 T MRI study with iron-sensitive sequences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
(118 reference statements)
4
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This suggests that iron accumulation in L6 may provide an earlier marker of pathology than the degeneration of L5(b) 5 . Our data also show that iron accumulates most strongly in the first-affected cortical field, as expected [17][18][19] , and that this is specific to L6. However, in our data, the degree of iron accumulation (% of pQSM pathology) does not predict whether or not a given cortical field is behaviourally affected.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…This suggests that iron accumulation in L6 may provide an earlier marker of pathology than the degeneration of L5(b) 5 . Our data also show that iron accumulates most strongly in the first-affected cortical field, as expected [17][18][19] , and that this is specific to L6. However, in our data, the degree of iron accumulation (% of pQSM pathology) does not predict whether or not a given cortical field is behaviourally affected.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…These maps reveal that demyelination is minimal compared to iron and calcium accumulation. As expected 1719 , iron accumulation is higher in the first-affected cortical field compared to the other fields (excluding the contralateral field given evidence of highly symmetric pQSM increases 19 ; see filled red arrows in Fig.3 ). This effect is specific to L6 (first-affected: M = 8.95, SD = 7.94, others: M = 2.49, SD = 1.68; t (6)= 2.81, p = .013, d = .95, 95% CI [−.04 2.22]), while there are no significant differences in L5b (first-affected: M = 6.66, SD = 8.19, others: M = 2.78, SD = 2.60; t (6)= 1.82, p = .056, d = .54, 95% CI [−.27 1.50]), L5a (first-affected: M = 4.66, SD = 3.56, others: M = 3.54, SD = 2.45; t (6)= 1.50, p = .089, d = .31, 95% CI [−.25 .95]) or Ls (first-affected: M = 3.11, SD = 2.44, others: M = 3.02, SD = 1.94; t (6)= .17, p = .436, d = .03, 95% CI [−.57 .65]).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 68%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The prior for the effect of geodesic distance on qT1 was set to normal (mean = 0 for all layers, same standard deviations as reported for the intercepts). QSM and aQSM priors were also informed by previous studies (Acosta-Cabronera et al 2018, Donatelli et al 2022). Signed QSM (QSM) values were allowed to vary between -0.125 and 0.125, aQSM values were allowed to vary between 0 and 0.125.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%