Diagnostic Performance of Glymphatic System Evaluation Using Diffusion Tensor Imaging in Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus and Mimickers
Clicks: 367
ID: 10002
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
67.7
/100
367 views
270 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #6 of 25 articles by views in current gerontology and geriatrics research
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Purpose. To investigate the pathological change of the glymphatic system in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) using diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) analysis. Materials and Methods. 24 right-handed patients were referred to our hydrocephalus clinic for assessment of ventriculomegaly and gait impairment. 12 of 24 were diagnosed as pseudo-iNPH (piNPH) based on assessment by a neurologist. Diffusivity maps in the direction of the x-axis (right-to-left) (Dx), y-axis (anterior-to-posterior) (Dy), and z-axis (inferior-to-superior) (Dz) were computed. The diffusion map was coregistered to International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM) DTI-81 atlas. The analysis along the perivascular space (ALPS) index was defined as mean (Dxpro, Dypro)/mean (Dypro, Dzasc), where Dxpro and Dxasc are Dx values in the projection and association fiber areas, respectively. Evans index and callosal angle were also assessed on each case. Results. ALPS indexes of the control, piNPH, and iNPH cases were 1.18 ± 0.08, 1.08 ± 0.03, and 0.94 ± 0.06, respectively, and there were significant differences among the groups (control vs. piNPH,
| Reference Key |
hajime2019diagnosticcurrent
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Yokota, Hajime;Vijayasarathi, Arvind;Cekic, Milos;Hirata, Yoko;Linetsky, Michael;Ho, Michael;Kim, Won;Salamon, Noriko;Yokota, Hajime;Vijayasarathi, Arvind;Cekic, Milos;Hirata, Yoko;Linetsky, Michael;Ho, Michael;Kim, Won;Salamon, Noriko; |
| Journal | current gerontology and geriatrics research |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1155/2019/5675014
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.