Published ahead of print on April 3, 2009
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1545
Cortical Morphometric Subclassification of Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration
O. Lindberga,
P. Östberga,
B.B. Zandbelta,
J. Öbergb,
Y. Zhangb,
C. Andersena,
J.C.L. Looic,
N. Bogdanovi
a and
L.-O. Wahlunda
a Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Section of Clinical Geriatrics, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden
b Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
c Academic Unit of Psychological Medicine, Australian National University Medical School, Canberra, Australia. Dr. Zandbelt is now with the Department of Psychiatry, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands
View larger version (144K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 1. Cortical regions manually outlined on contiguous coronal sections. Note that only gray matter is included in all regions except the TEMP and the HIPP, where both gray and white matter is included.
| |
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 2. Comparison between FTLD subtypes and controls. X-axis denotes volume of interest (VOI). Y-axis denotes VOI divided by intracranial volume normalized as z-scores. To illustrate the overall pattern of cortical atrophy, we connected the structures by a horizontal line. Vertical bars denote the 95% confidence interval. Plus sign indicates P < .01; number sign, P < .05; ampersand, P < .07 (close to significant); temp pole, temporal pole; L, left; R, Right.
| |
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 3. Difference between left- and right-sided volume of interest (VOI) calculated in percentages. FTD versus PNFA: total laterality, P = .015. Insula P < .01. PNFA versus control insula, P = .025. Total indicates the total volume of all measured regions; temp, the volume of all measured temporal regions; temp pole, the volume of temporal pole; Insula, the volume of the insula; frontal, the volume of all frontal regions.
| |
View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 4. Scatterplots of the PLS-DA models of the comparisons of FTLD subtypes. This plot illustrates the degree of separation between groups. The horizontal scale refers to the first component (t[1]), whereas the vertical scale refers to second component (t[2]). A, Comparison between FTD and PNFA. B, Comparison between FTD and SD. C, Comparison between PNFA and SD.
| |
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 5. The VIP plots denote the importance of each measured region for separation between the compared subtypes. A variable with a VIP value >1 (above the horizontal line) is of above average importance for the separation of the investigated groups. The x-axis denotes the regions included in the discriminant analysis. The y-axis denotes the VIP value. Temp pol indicates temporal pole; L, left; R, right.
| |
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Fig 6. Comparison between FTLD subtypes. X-axis denotes the volume of interest. Y-axis denotes the volume of interest (VOI)/ICV as a ratio of control mean value of VOI/ICV. Control mean value is set to 0%. Vertical bars denote 95% confidence interval. To emphasis the pattern of atrophy, we connected the structures by a horizontal line. Plus sign indicates P < .01; number sign, P < .05; temp pole, temporal pole; L. left; R, right.
| |
