Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Facilitating accurate diagnosis and ensuring appropriate treatment of dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD), and Lewy body dementia (DLB), is clinically important. However, the differences in glucose metabolic distribution among these three dementia subtypes are minor, which can result in difficulties in diagnosis by visual assessment or traditional quantification methods. Here, we explored this issue using novel approaches, including brain network and abnormal hemispheric asymmetry analyses. We generated 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) images from patients with AD, PDD, and DLB, and healthy control (HC) subjects (n = 22, 18, 22, and 22, respectively) from Huashan hospital, Shanghai, China. Brain network properties were measured and between-group differences evaluated using graph theory. We also calculated and explored asymmetry indices for the cerebral hemispheres in the four groups, to explore whether differences between the two hemispheres were characteristic of each group. Our study revealed significant differences in the network properties of the HC and AD groups (small-world coefficient, 1.36 vs. 1.28; clustering coefficient, 1.48 vs. 1.59; characteristic path length, 1.57 vs. 1.64). In addition, differing hub regions were identified in the different dementias. We also identified rightward asymmetry in the hemispheric brain networks of patients with AD and DLB, and leftward asymmetry in the hemispheric brain networks of patients with PDD, which were attributable to aberrant topological properties in the corresponding hemispheres.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.