We have located open access text paper links.
Quantitative brain stem assessment in discriminating neurodegenerative disorders from normal pressure hydrocephalus.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differentiating idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) from neurodegenerative disorders such as progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), Multiple System Atrophy-parkinsonian type (MSA-P), and vascular dementia (VaD) is challenging due to overlapping clinical and neuroimaging findings. This study assesses if quantitative brain stem and cerebellum metrics can aid in this differentiation.
METHODS: We retrospectively compared the sagittal midbrain area, midbrain to pons ratio, MR parkinsonism index (MRPI), and cerebellar atrophy in 30 PSP patients, 31 iNPH patients, 27 MSA-P patients, 32 VaD patients, and 25 healthy controls. Statistical analyses determined group differences, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves.
RESULTS: There was an overlap in midbrain morphology between PSP and iNPH, as assessed with MRPI, midbrain to pons ratio, and midbrain area. A cutoff value of MRPI > 13 exhibited 84% specificity in distinguishing PSP from iNPH and 100% in discriminating PSP from all other conditions. A cutoff value of midbrain to pons ratio at <0.15 yielded 95% specificity for differentiating PSP from iNPH and 100% from all other conditions. A cutoff value of midbrain area at <87 mm2 exhibited 97% specificity for differentiating PSP from iNPH and 100% from all other conditions. All measures showed low sensitivity. Cerebellar atrophy did not differ significantly among groups.
CONCLUSION: Our study questions MRPI's diagnostic performance in distinguishing PSP from iNPH. Simpler indices such as midbrain to pons ratio and midbrain area showed similar or better accuracy. However, all these indices displayed low sensitivity despite significant differences among PSP, MSA-P, and VaD.
METHODS: We retrospectively compared the sagittal midbrain area, midbrain to pons ratio, MR parkinsonism index (MRPI), and cerebellar atrophy in 30 PSP patients, 31 iNPH patients, 27 MSA-P patients, 32 VaD patients, and 25 healthy controls. Statistical analyses determined group differences, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves.
RESULTS: There was an overlap in midbrain morphology between PSP and iNPH, as assessed with MRPI, midbrain to pons ratio, and midbrain area. A cutoff value of MRPI > 13 exhibited 84% specificity in distinguishing PSP from iNPH and 100% in discriminating PSP from all other conditions. A cutoff value of midbrain to pons ratio at <0.15 yielded 95% specificity for differentiating PSP from iNPH and 100% from all other conditions. A cutoff value of midbrain area at <87 mm2 exhibited 97% specificity for differentiating PSP from iNPH and 100% from all other conditions. All measures showed low sensitivity. Cerebellar atrophy did not differ significantly among groups.
CONCLUSION: Our study questions MRPI's diagnostic performance in distinguishing PSP from iNPH. Simpler indices such as midbrain to pons ratio and midbrain area showed similar or better accuracy. However, all these indices displayed low sensitivity despite significant differences among PSP, MSA-P, and VaD.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Review article: Recent advances in ascites and acute kidney injury management in cirrhosis.Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2024 March 26
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app