Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Percentage cortical thickness loss in RRj relative to CISn for the different brain lobes (frontal, insula, parietal, temporal, and occipital). Values were color-coded and ranged from 0%–5%. Juxtacortical lesion probability map (right) for patients with CIS (cold scale) and patients with RRMS (warm scale), scaled to the maximum value (10%). Results were overlaid on the mean filled structural image of the whole cohort studied.
- Fig 2.
Inflated brain, displaying areas of reduced cortical thickness (red areas) in CISj compared with CISnj (significance level P < .01 for display purposes). Blue areas indicate regions where cortical thickness in CISnj is reduced compared with CISj. The CIS JL lesion probability map was overlaid in purple (right column, left hemisphere; left column, right hemisphere; superior row, lateral view; inferior row, medial view). The JL lesion probability map is a binary mask for display purposes. No overlap was seen between the areas, showing significant changes in thickness and the JL lesion probability map.
- Fig 3.
Inflated brain displaying areas of reduced cortical thickness (red areas) in RRj compared with RRnj (significance level P < .01, for display purposes). Blue areas indicate regions in which cortical thickness in RRnj is reduced compared with RRj. The RR JL lesion probability map was overlaid in purple (right column, left hemisphere; left column, right hemisphere; superior row, lateral view; inferior row, medial view). The JL lesion probability map was a binary mask, just for display purposes. No overlap was seen between the areas showing significant changes in thickness and the JL lesion probability map.
Tables
CISn CISnj CISj RRnj RRj N (women) 24 (15) 33 (20) 34 (20) 10 (4) 30 (20) Mean (SD) age, y 36 ± 10 36 ± 7 35 ± 8 34 ± 7 36 ± 7 Mean (SD) EDSS 1.4 ± 0.9 1.4 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 1.1 3.2 ± 2.0 2.5 ± 1.6 Mean (SD) DIS 3–5 mo 3–5 mo 3–5 mo 10.4 ± 8.2 y 10.6 ± 7.1 y LV mL (SD) 0 0.75 ± 1.17 4.10 ± 6.38 3.12 ± 3.71 9.10 ± 7.86 Note:—EDSS indicates expanded disability scale; DIS, disease duration.
Lobe LPMvol CIS, no. (%) LPMρ CIS, % LPMvol RRMS, no. (%) LPMρ RRMS, % Frontal 11.6 (39.3) 1.7 27.0 (46) 4.0 Insula 1.3 (4.5) 5.0 1.9 (3.2) 7.0 Parietal 7.7 (26.2) 2.0 14.2 (24.3) 3.7 Temporal 7.7 (26.12) 2.6 13.9 (23.8) 4.7 Occipital 1.1 (3.9) 0.7 1.6 (2.8) 0.9 Note:—LPM indicates lesion probability map; LPMvol, absolute volume in milliliters of JL per lobe (percentage of global JL volume); LPMρ, percentage of JL volume relative to lobe volume.
↵a Total JLV (LPMvol) in milliliters (percentage relative to global amount), and percentage relative to lobe volume in patients with CIS and patients with RRMS.
Lobe P Value (Factor Group)a CISn CISnj CISj RRnj RRj P Value (R vs L)b Global_R .064 2.50 (0.13)c 2.47 (0.09) 2.44 (0.16) 2.47 (0.09) 2.40 (0.13) .806 Global_L .074 2.50 (0.13) 2.48 (0.19) 2.45 (0.16) 2.49 (0.09) 2.41 (0.13) Frontal_R .389 2.55 (0.16) 2.53 (0.16) 2.51 (0.16) 2.55 (0.11) 2.49 (0.11) .006 Frontal_L .424 2.52 (0.17) 2.47 (0.11) 2.46 (0.15) 2.50 (0.13) 2.46 (0.12) Insula_R .944 3.01 (0.16) 3.04 (0.14) 3.02 (0.25) 2.99 (0.15) 3.03 (0.13) .711 Insula_L .881 3.05 (0.19) 3.05 (0.14) 3.01 (0.24) 3.03 (0.16) 3.02 (0.15) Parietal_R .056 2.22 (0.11)c 2.17 (0.07) 2.15 (0.17) 2.19 (0.08) 2.12 (0.13) .414 Parietal_L .025 2.22 (0.11)c 2.20 (0.09) 2.17 (0.17) 2.21 (0.09) 2.12 (0.14) Temporal_R .119 2.93 (0.14) 2.90 (0.17) 2.87 (0.21) 2.91 (0.21) 2.80 (0.21) .002 Temporal_L .084 3.01 (0.14) 2.97 (0.16) 2.94 (0.20) 2.96 (0.16) 2.88 (0.19) Occipital_R .014 2.29 (0.14) 2.30 (0.11)c 2.24 (0.17) 2.29 (0.12) 2.19 (0.14) .224 Occipital_L .047 2.30 (0.13) 2.31 (0.09)c 2.28 (0.13) 2.29 (0.11) 2.22 (0.15) - Table 4:
Subcortical gray matter volumes percentage relative to total intracranial volume for the groups studied
Subcortical Gray Matter P Value (Factor Group)a CISng CISnjg CISjg RRnjg RRjg P Value (R vs L)b Thal_R .000 0.502 (0.041)f 0.486 (0.060)e 0.473 (0.058)e 0.477 (0.092) 0.424 (0.064) .986 Thal_L .003 0.492 (0.042)e 0.485 (0.053)e 0.474 (0.062) 0.476 (0.010) 0.432 (0.066) Pallidum_R .029 0.115 (0.013)c 0.114 (0.016)d 0.109 (0.015) 0.110 (0.017) 0.103 (0.017) .000 Pallidum_L .003 0.132 (0.018)e 0.129 (0.017)d 0.118 (0.023) 0.124 (0.027) 0.113 (0.021) Caudate_R .069 0.277 (0.037) 0.278 (0.036) 0.257 (0.041) 0.271 (0.052) 0.256 (0.035) .015 Caudate_L .025 0.268 (0.036) 0.266 (0.034) 0.247 (0.037) 0.259 (0.043) 0.242 (0.038) Putamen_R .009 0.428 (0.037)d 0.427 (0.074)d 0.408 (0.072) 0.410 (0.085) 0.369 (0.072) .020 Putamen_L .002 0.452 (0.042)e 0.452 (0.069)e 0.428 (0.081) 0.430 (0.082) 0.384 (0.073) Accum_R .001 0.054 (0.011)d 0.056 (0.011)e 0.052 (0.009) 0.057 (0.012)d 0.045 (0.013) .745 Accum_L .002 0.053 (0.007) 0.058 (0.012)e 0.052 (0.009) 0.054 (0.010) 0.047 (0.010) Hippo_R .064 0.305 (0.026) 0.315(0.041)d 0.306 (0.040) 0.306 (0.053) 0.283 (0.053) .393 Hippo_L .121 0.301 (0.026) 0.308 (0.041) 0.303 (0.037) 0.294 (0.056) 0.282 (0.044) Amygdala_R .005 0.129 (0.017) 0.140 (0.023)e 0.128 (0.020) 0.131 (0.025) 0.119 (0.024) .440 Amygdala_L .158 0.126 (0.020) 0.134 (0.021) 0.129 (0.019) 0.128 (0.021) 0.120 (0.028) Note:—Thal indicates thalamus; R, right; L, left; Accum, accumbens; Hippo, hippocampus.
↵a P value of the 1-way ANOVA test with group as a factor.
↵b P value of the hemisphere effect (R vs L hemispheres values).
↵c P = .059.
↵d P < .05.
↵e P < .01.
↵f P < .001 compared with RRj.
↵g Data are expressed as mean (SD).
In this issue
