Skip to main content
AAN.com

Abstract

Background: MRI measures of the entorhinal cortex and the hippocampus have been used to predict which nondemented individuals with memory problems will progress to meet criteria for AD on follow-up, but their relative accuracy remains controversial.
Objectives: To compare MRI measures of the entorhinal cortex and the hippocampus for predicting who will develop AD.
Methods: MRI volumes of the entorhinal cortex and the hippocampus were obtained in 137 individuals comprising four groups: 1) individuals with normal cognition both at baseline and after 3 years of follow-up (n = 28), 2) subjects with memory difficulty but not dementia both at baseline and after 3 years of follow-up (n = 73), 3) subjects with memory difficulty at baseline who were diagnosed with probable AD within 3 years of follow-up (n = 21), and 4) patients with mild AD at baseline (n = 16).
Results: Measures of both the entorhinal cortex and the hippocampus were different for each of the pairwise comparisons between the groups (p < 0.001) and were correlated with tests of memory (p < 0.01). However, the volume of the entorhinal cortex differentiated the subjects from those destined to develop dementia with considerable accuracy (84%), whereas the measure of the hippocampus did not.
Conclusion: These findings are consistent with neuropathologic data showing substantial involvement of the entorhinal cortex in the preclinical phase of AD and suggest that, as the disease spreads, atrophic change develops within the hippocampus, which is measurable on MRI.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

1.
Squire L, Zola S. Amnesia, memory and brain systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci . 1997; 29: 1663–1673.
2.
Ball MH. Neuronal loss, neurofibrillay tangles and granulovacuolar degeneration in the hippocampus with aging and dementia. Acta Neuropatholgica . 1977; 37: 11–18.
3.
Hyman BT, Van Hoesen GW, Kromer C, Damasio A. Alzheimer’s disease: cell specific pathology isolates the hippocampal formation. Science . 1984; 225: 1168–1170.
4.
Braak H, Braak E. Neuropathological staging of Alzheimer-related changes. Acta Neuropathol . 1991; 82: 239–259.
5.
Cummings J, Benson D. Dementia. A clinical approach. Woburn, MA: Butterworth, 1983.
6.
McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA work group under the auspices of department of health and human services task force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology . 1984; 34: 939–944.
7.
Convit A, deLeon M, Golomb J, et al. Hippocampal atrophy in early Alzheimer’s disease: anatomic specificity and validation. Psychiatr Q . 1993; 64: 371–387.
8.
Ikeda M, Tanabe H, Nakagawa Y, et al. MRI-based quantitative assessment of the hippocampal region in very mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroradiology . 1994; 36: 7–10.
9.
Jack C, Petersen R, O’Brien P, Tangalos E. MR-based hippocampal volumetry in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology . 1992; 42: 183–188.
10.
Kesslak J, Nalcioglu O, Cotman C. Quantification of magnetic resonance scans for hippocampal and parahippocampal atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology . 1991; 41: 51–54.
11.
Killiany RJ, Moss MB, Albert MS, Sandor T, Tieman J, Jolesz F. Temporal lobe regions on magnetic resonance imaging identify patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol . 1993; 50: 949–954.
12.
Killiany R, Gomez-Isla T, Moss M, et al. Use of structural magnetic resonance imaging to predict who will get Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol . 2000; 47: 430–439.
13.
Lehericy S, Baulac M, Chiras J, et al. Amygdalohippocampal MR volume measurements in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Neuroradiol . 1994; 15: 929–937.
14.
Murphy D, DeCarli C, Daly E, et al. Volumetric magnetic resonance imaging in men with dementia of the Alzheimer type: correlations with disease severity. Biol Psychiatry . 1993; 34: 612–621.
15.
O’Brien J, Desmond P, Ames D, Schweitzer I, Chiu E, Tress B. Temporal lobe magnetic resonance imaging can differentiate Alzheimer’s disease from normal ageing, depression, vascular dementia and other causes of cognitive impairment. Psychol Med . 1997; 27: 1267–1275.
16.
Seab JP, Jagust WJ, Wong ST, Roos MS, Reed BR, Budinger TF. Quantitative NMR measurements of hippocampal atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease. Magn Reson Med . 1988; 8: 200–208.
17.
Bobinski M, deLeon M, Convit A, et al. MRI of entorhinal cortex in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet . 1999; 353: 38–40.
18.
Fox N, Warrington E, Freeborough P, et al. Presymptomatic hippocampal atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal study. Brain . 1996; 119: 2001–2007.
19.
Jouttenen K, Laasko M, Insausti R, et al. Volumes of the entorhinal and perirhinal cortices in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging . 1998; 19: 15–22.
20.
Kaye J, Swihart T, Howieson D, et al. Volume loss of the hippocampus and temporal lobe in healthy elderly persons destined to develop dementia. Neurology . 1997; 48: 1297–1304.
21.
Visser P, Scheltens P, Verhey F, et al. Medial temporal lobe atrophy and memory dysfunction as predictors of dementia in subjects with mild cognitive impairment. J Neurol . 1999; 246: 477–485.
22.
Xu Y, Jack C, O’Brien P, et al. Usefulness of MRI measures of entorhinal cortex versus hippocampus in AD. Neurology . 2000; 54: 1760–1767.
23.
Gomez-Isla T, Price J, McKeel D, Morris J, Growdon J, Hyman B. Profound loss of layer II entorhinal cortex neurons occurs in very mild Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurosci . 1996; 16: 4491–4500.
24.
Hughes CP, Berg L, Danziger WL, Coben LA, Martin RL. A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatry . 1982; 140: 566–572.
25.
Rubin E, Morris J, Grant E, Vendegna T. Very mild senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. I: Clinical assessment. Arch Neurol . 1989; 46: 379–382.
26.
Daly E, Zaitchik D, Copeland M, Schmahmann J, Gunther J, Albert M. Predicting “conversion” to AD using standardized clinical information. Arch Neurol . 2000; 57: 675–680.
27.
Petersen R. Mild cognitive impairment or questionable dementia? Arch Neurol . 2000; 57: 643–644.
28.
Petersen R, Smith G, Waring S, Ivnik R, Tangalos E, Kokmen E. Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Arch Neurol . 1999; 56: 303–308.
29.
Hachinski J. Cerebral blood flow differentiation of Alzheimer’s disease from multi-infarct dementia. In: Katzman R, Terry RD, Bick KL, eds. Alzheimer’s disease: senile dementia and related disorders. New York: Raven Press, 1978: 97–104.
30.
Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P. “Mini-Mental State”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res . 1975; 12: 189–198.
31.
NIA-Reagan Working Group. Consensus recommendations for the postmortem diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging . 1997; 18: S1-S27.
32.
Sandor T, Jolesz F, Tieman J, Kikinis R, Jones K, Albert M. Comparative analysis of computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging scans in Alzheimer patients and controls. Arch Neurol . 1992; 49: 381–384.
33.
Sandor T, Jolesz F, Tieman J, et al. Extraction of morphometric information from dual echo magnetic resonance images. Visual Communications in Image Processing . 1990; 1360: 665–675.
34.
Insausti R, Juottenen K, Soinen H, et al. MR volumetric analysis of the human entorhinal, perirhinal, and temporopolar cortices. Am J Neuroradiol . 1998; 19: 659–671.
35.
Saunders AM, Strittmatter WJ, Schmechel D, et al. Association of apolipoprotein E allele 4 with late-onset familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology . 1993; 43: 1467–1472.
36.
Delis D, Kramer J, Kaplan E, Ober B. The California Verbal Learning Test. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1987.
37.
Grober E, Buschke H. Genuine memory deficits in dementia. Dev Neuropsychol . 1987; 3: 13–36.
38.
Rey A. L’examen psychologique dans les cas d’encephalopathie traumatique (Psyhcological examination of cases of traumatic encephalopathy). Arch Psychologie . 1941; 28: 286–340.
39.
Knopman D, Ryberg S. A verbal memory test with high predictive accuracy for dementia of the Alzheimer Type. Arch Neurol . 1989; 46: 141–145.
40.
Wechsler D. A standardized memory scale for clinical use. J Psychol . 1945; 19: 87–95.
41.
Reitan RM. Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills . 1958; 8: 271–276.
42.
Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol . 1935; 18: 643–662.
43.
Petrides M, Milner B. Deficits in subject-ordered tasks after frontal and temporal lobe lesions in man. Neuropsychologia . 1982; 20: 249–262.
44.
Porteus S. The Maze Test and Clinical Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books, 1959.
45.
Craik FIM. A functional account of age differences in memory. In: Klix F, Hagendorf H, eds. Human memory and cognitive capabilities. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press, 1986: 409–422.
46.
Wechsler D. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1988.
47.
Benton AL, Hamsher K. Multilingual Aphasia Examination. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press, 1976.
48.
Kaplan E, Goodglass H, Weintraub S. Boston Naming Test. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1982.
49.
Baker EL, Letz R, Fidler AT. A computer administered neurobehavioral evaluation system for occupational and environmental epidemiology. J Occup Med . 1985; 27: 206–212.
50.
Satz P, Mogel S. An abbreviation of the WAIS for clinical use. J Clin Psychol . 1962; 18: 77–79.
51.
Press EJ. Applied multivariate analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1972.
52.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet . 1986; 346: 307–310.
53.
Albert M, Moss M, Tanzi R, Jones K. Preclinical prediction of AD using neuropsychological tests. J Int Neuropsychol Soc . 2001; 7: 631–639.
54.
Pocock S, Hughes M, Lee R. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. N Engl J Med . 1987; 317: 426–432.
55.
Moss MB, Albert MS, Butters N, Payne M. Differential patterns of memory loss among patients with Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s disease and Alcoholic Korsakoff’s Syndrome. Arch Neurol . 1986; 43: 239–246.
56.
Welsh K, Butters N, Hughes J, Mohs R, Heyman A. Detection and staging in Alzheimer’s disease: use of the neuropsychological measures developed for the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease. Arch Neurol . 1992; 49: 448–452.
57.
Morris J, Storandt M, Miller P, et al. Mild cognitive impairment represents early-stage Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol . 2001; 58: 397–405.
58.
Mayeux R, Saunders A, Shea S, et al. Utility of the Apolipoprotein E genotype in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med . 1998; 338: 506–511.
Letters to the Editor
24 June 2002
MRI measures of entorhinal cortex vs hippocampus in preclinical AD
John C Morris
John Csemansky and Joseph L Price

Killiany et al. report that volumetric measures of the entorhinal cortex and, to a lesser extent, the hippocampus discriminate those elderly individuals in the CDR 0.5 stage of cognitive impairment who progress to greater impairment from those who remain at the CDR 0.5 stage. [1] The authors propose that MRI measures detect preclinical pathological change associated with Alzheimer disease (AD) and further suggest that AD pathology begins in the entorhinal cortex and later spreads to the hippocampus. [1] We applaud the careful work of this group, although the basis for their conclusion about the temporal spread of pathology can be challenged: because only a baseline MRI was obtained, the region in which volume loss first occurred cannot be resolved in this study.

However, we agree that medial temporal lobe structures are most vulnerable to the earliest pathological changes of AD. We find in our clinicopathologic studies that AD lesions develop initially in the entorhinal cortex and ultimately may be present in sufficient densities throughout the neocortex to meet criteria for neuropathological AD, even in the absence of dementia. [2] We also have demonstrated that substantial entorhinal and hippocampal cortical neuronal loss occurs in CDR 0.5 individuals in comparison with nondemented elderly controls. [3] Correspondingly, our MRI studies have shown that hippocampal measures of volume and shape discriminate CDR 0.5 individuals from nondemented individuals. [4]

We differ with Killiany et al. on two major issues. We use the term, "preclinical AD", to indicate the presence of disease before it is clinically recognizable. This term characterizes cases with neuropathological AD in the absence of cognitive symptoms, impairment or decline. [5] Preclinical AD thus is prior to the CDR 0.5 stage. In contrast, Killiany et al. appear to use "preclinical AD" to designate CDR 0.5 individuals who already are symptomatic by virtue of their memory complaints. At least 21 of their cases progressed in CDR severity over 3 years, suggesting that the baseline memory complaints for these individuals reflected the initial clinical expression of AD. If so, these individuals might more accurately be considered to represent very early or very mild AD rather than "preclinical AD". Postmortem studies performed by our group show that individuals with truly preclinical AD lack substantial neuronal or volume loss in the entorhinal cortex or hippocampus, [3] suggesting that volumetric measures of medial temporal lobe structures would be unlikely to detect such cases.

It also appears that Killiany et al. operationalized the diagnosis of AD as equivalent to reaching the CDR 1 stage. This approach will miss many individuals who develop diagnosable AD while still in the CDR 0.5 stage. [6, 7] Our experience indicates that pathologically verified AD can be clinically diagnosed even in CDR 0.5 individuals with a mean Mini- Mental State Examination score of 29, [7] comparable to the "questionable" group of Killiany et al. Because they apparently do not recognize these early AD cases, the entorhinal measures reported by them may simply detect AD individuals within the CDR 0.5 stage who are more severely affected than others. [1] These individuals would be most likely to progress to a greater stage of AD severity (i.e. CDR 1) over a defined period, whereas less affected CDR 0.5 individuals with AD may require longer periods to progress. Rather than the presence or absence of disease, the MRI entorhinal measures may be detecting individuals who are relatively more advanced, and hence more likely to progress, within this group of very mildly impaired individuals. Should effective disease-modifying treatments be developed for AD, we suggest that it will be important that imaging and other surrogate markers identify the even less affected individuals with AD, as well as those at the earlier stage of preclinical AD, to permit optimal benefit of the interventions.

References

1.Killiany RJ, Hyman BT, Gomez-Isla T, Moss MB, Kikinis R, Jolesz F et al. MRI measures of entorhinal cortex vs hippocampus in preclinical AD. Neurology 2002; 58:1188-1196.

2.Price JL, Morris JC. Tangles and plaques in nondemented aging and "preclinical" Alzheimer's disease. Ann Neurol 1999; 45:358-368.

3.Price JL, Ko AI, Wade MJ, Tsou SK, McKeel DW, Jr., Morris JC. Neuron number in the entorhinal cortex and CA1 in preclinical Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 2001; 58:1395-1402.

4. Csernansky JG, Wang L, Joshi S, Miller JP, Gado M, Kido D et al. Early DAT is distinguished from aging by high dimensional mapping of the hippocampus. Neurology 2000; 55:1636-1643.

5. Goldman WP, Price JL, Storandt M, Grant EA, McKeel DW, Jr., Rubin EH et al. Absence of cognitive impairment or decline in preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Neurology 2001; 56:361-367.

6. Petersen RC, Smith GE, Waring SC, Ivnik RJ, Tangalos EG, Kokmen E. Mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol 1999; 56:303-308.

7. Morris JC, Storandt M, Miller JP, McKeel DW, Jr., Price JL, Rubin EH et al. Mild cognitive impairment represents early-stage Alzheimer's disease. Arch Neurol 2001; 58:397-405.

24 June 2002
Reply to Letter to the Editor
Marilyn S Albert
Ronald Killiany and Bradley T Hyman

The accompanying letter by Morris et al. raises three independent but interrelated issues important to those studying prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD): (1) the nature of pathological change seen earliest in the course of those destined to develop AD, (2) whether MRI measures have been identified that parallel this pathology, and (3) the nomenclature used to describe individuals in the prodromal phase of AD.

Pathological studies have consistently reported that the parahippocampal gyrus is affected early in AD and most studies show that entorhinal (and transentorhinal) cortex layer II neurons develop tangles even before the CA1/prosubicular neurons in the hippocampus. [1. 2] Both sites are affected early in the disease process without doubt.

Quantitative measures from MRI scan now clearly show in vivo what neuropathological analyses have suggested from cross-sectional studies, i.e. that brain changes occur in specific brain regions long before overt dementia. The most commonly reported finding is that the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus show decreased volume among non-demented individuals with cognitive problems. [3. 5] Moreover, recent longitudinal data demonstrate a greater change over time in the entorhinal cortex than in the hippocampus during the prodromal phase of AD. [4] consistent with the pathological findings.

The nomenclature used to describe individuals in the prodromal phase of AD is varied. In addition, the populations of non-demented individuals with cognitive problems that have been studied differ in their range of impairment. We use the term 'preclinical' to refer to individuals who do not yet meet clinical criteria for probable AD. These individuals clearly have clinical expression of AD, even though they are not demented. In our recent MRI study, there were 21 such 'questionable' subjects who subsequently progressed to overt dementia. We used the Sum of Boxes from the CDR scale to quantify their degree of functional difficulty at baseline. Of the 21 'questionable' subjects (mean Sum of Boxes = 1.8), one had a Sum of Boxes of 3.0, while all the others had a Sum of Boxes of 2.5 or lower. None had a box score of 3.5 or higher. Thus, our evaluation of these individuals indicated that they were not demented at the time the baseline MRI scans was obtained. Clearly, it will be important for groups studying such individuals to reach a consensus on terminology and methodology in order to facilitate examination of individuals with prodromal AD.

References

1. Braak H, Braak E. Neuropathological staging of Alzheimer-related changes. Acta Neuropathol (Berl). 1991;82:239-259.

2. Arriagada PV, Growdon JH, Hedley-Whyte ET, Hyman BT. Neurofibrillary tangles but not senile plaques parallel duration and severity of Alzheimer's disease. Neurology, 1992; 42:631-639.

3. Dickerson BC, Goncharova I, Sullivan MP, Forchetti C, Wilson RS, Bennett DA, Beckett LA, deToledo-Morrell L. MRI-derived entorhinal and hippocampal atrophy in incipient and very mild Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging, 2001;22:747-754.

4. Du A, Schuff N, Zhu X-P, Jagust W, Chui H, Weiner M. Larger rates of atrophy of entorhinal cortex than of hippocampus in Alzheimer's disease. 8th Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine; Honolulu, 2002.

5. Xu Y, Jack CR Jr, O'Brien PC, Kokmen E, Smith GE, Ivnik RJ, Boeve BF,Tangalos RG, Petersen RC. Usefulness of MRI measures of entorhinal cortex versus hippocampus in AD. Neurology, 2000;54:1760-1777.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Neurology®
Volume 58Number 8April 23, 2002
Pages: 1188-1196
PubMed: 11971085

Publication History

Received: March 2, 2001
Accepted: January 2, 2002
Published online: April 23, 2002
Published in print: April 23, 2002

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations & Disclosures

R. J. Killiany, PhD
From the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (Drs. Killiany and Moss), Boston University; Department of Neurology (Drs. Hyman, Gomez-Isla, Tanzi, and Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; and Department of Radiology (Drs. Kikinis and Jolesz), Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Heller School of Social Policy (Dr. Jones), Brandeis University, Waltham; and Department of Psychiatry (Dr. Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
B. T. Hyman, MD PhD
From the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (Drs. Killiany and Moss), Boston University; Department of Neurology (Drs. Hyman, Gomez-Isla, Tanzi, and Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; and Department of Radiology (Drs. Kikinis and Jolesz), Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Heller School of Social Policy (Dr. Jones), Brandeis University, Waltham; and Department of Psychiatry (Dr. Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
T. Gomez-Isla, MD PhD
From the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (Drs. Killiany and Moss), Boston University; Department of Neurology (Drs. Hyman, Gomez-Isla, Tanzi, and Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; and Department of Radiology (Drs. Kikinis and Jolesz), Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Heller School of Social Policy (Dr. Jones), Brandeis University, Waltham; and Department of Psychiatry (Dr. Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
M. B. Moss, PhD
From the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (Drs. Killiany and Moss), Boston University; Department of Neurology (Drs. Hyman, Gomez-Isla, Tanzi, and Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; and Department of Radiology (Drs. Kikinis and Jolesz), Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Heller School of Social Policy (Dr. Jones), Brandeis University, Waltham; and Department of Psychiatry (Dr. Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
R. Kikinis, MD
From the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (Drs. Killiany and Moss), Boston University; Department of Neurology (Drs. Hyman, Gomez-Isla, Tanzi, and Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; and Department of Radiology (Drs. Kikinis and Jolesz), Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Heller School of Social Policy (Dr. Jones), Brandeis University, Waltham; and Department of Psychiatry (Dr. Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
F. Jolesz, MD
From the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (Drs. Killiany and Moss), Boston University; Department of Neurology (Drs. Hyman, Gomez-Isla, Tanzi, and Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; and Department of Radiology (Drs. Kikinis and Jolesz), Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Heller School of Social Policy (Dr. Jones), Brandeis University, Waltham; and Department of Psychiatry (Dr. Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
R. Tanzi, PhD
From the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (Drs. Killiany and Moss), Boston University; Department of Neurology (Drs. Hyman, Gomez-Isla, Tanzi, and Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; and Department of Radiology (Drs. Kikinis and Jolesz), Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Heller School of Social Policy (Dr. Jones), Brandeis University, Waltham; and Department of Psychiatry (Dr. Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
K. Jones, PhD
From the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (Drs. Killiany and Moss), Boston University; Department of Neurology (Drs. Hyman, Gomez-Isla, Tanzi, and Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; and Department of Radiology (Drs. Kikinis and Jolesz), Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Heller School of Social Policy (Dr. Jones), Brandeis University, Waltham; and Department of Psychiatry (Dr. Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
M. S. Albert, PhD
From the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology (Drs. Killiany and Moss), Boston University; Department of Neurology (Drs. Hyman, Gomez-Isla, Tanzi, and Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; and Department of Radiology (Drs. Kikinis and Jolesz), Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston; Heller School of Social Policy (Dr. Jones), Brandeis University, Waltham; and Department of Psychiatry (Dr. Albert), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Notes

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Marilyn Albert, Massachusetts General Hospital, Psychiatry/Gerontology (149-9124), 149 13th Street, Charlestown, MA 02129; e-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited By
  1. Alzheimer's disease detection using data fusion with a deep supervised encoder, Frontiers in Dementia, 3, (2024).https://doi.org/10.3389/frdem.2024.1332928
    Crossref
  2. Visual Functions Are Associated with Biomarker Changes in Alzheimer’s Disease, Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 99, 2, (623-637), (2024).https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-231084
    Crossref
  3. Possibilities and prospects of the MR morphometry method in the diagnosis of dementia, Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council, 12, (22-30), (2024).https://doi.org/10.21518/ms2024-289
    Crossref
  4. Genetics impact risk of Alzheimer’s disease through mechanisms modulating structural brain morphology in late life, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, (jnnp-2023-332969), (2024).https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2023-332969
    Crossref
  5. Neurobiological mechanisms of electroconvulsive therapy for depression: Insights into hippocampal volumetric increases from clinical and preclinical studies, Journal of Neurochemistry, (2024).https://doi.org/10.1111/jnc.16054
    Crossref
  6. Lower entorhinal cortex thickness is associated with greater financial exploitation vulnerability in cognitively unimpaired older adults, Cerebral Cortex, 34, 9, (2024).https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhae360
    Crossref
  7. Impact of genetic predisposition to late-onset neurodegenerative diseases on early life outcomes and brain structure, Translational Psychiatry, 14, 1, (2024).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-024-02898-9
    Crossref
  8. The effect of hippocampal subfield damage on rapid temporal integration through statistical learning and associative inference, Neuropsychologia, 193, (108755), (2024).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2023.108755
    Crossref
  9. Unraveling the complexity of human brain: Structure, function in healthy and disease states, Ageing Research Reviews, 100, (102414), (2024).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2024.102414
    Crossref
  10. Does resistance training in older adults lead to structural brain changes associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer’s dementia? A narrative review, Ageing Research Reviews, 98, (102356), (2024).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2024.102356
    Crossref
  11. See more
Loading...

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Personal login Institutional Login
Purchase Options

The neurology.org payment platform is currently offline. Our technical team is working as quickly as possible to restore service.

If you need immediate support or to place an order, please call or email customer service:

  • 1-800-638-3030 for U.S. customers - 8:30 - 7 pm ET (M-F)
  • 1-301-223-2300 for customers outside the U.S. - 8:30 - 7 pm ET (M-F)
  • [email protected]

We appreciate your patience during this time and apologize for any inconvenience.

View options

PDF and All Supplements

Download PDF and Supplementary Material

Full Text

View Full Text

Full Text HTML

View Full Text HTML

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share