Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background and purposeMean apparent propagator (MAP) MRI is a novel diffusion imaging method to map tissue microstructure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of the MAP MRI in Parkinson's disease (PD) in comparison with conventional diffusion tensor imaging (DTI).Methods23 PD patients and 22 age- and gender-matched healthy controls were included. MAP MRI and DTI were performed on a 3T MR scanner with a 20-channel head coil. The MAP metrics including mean square displacement (MSD), return to the origin probability (RTOP), return to the axis probability (RTAP), and return to the plane probability (RTPP), and DTI metrics including fractional anisotropy (FA), and mean diffusivity (MD), were measured in subcortical gray matter and compared between the two groups. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the diagnostic performance of all the metrics. The association between the diffusion metrics and disease severity was assessed by Pearson correlation analysis.ResultsFor MAP MRI, the mean values of MSD in the bilateral caudate, pallidum, putamen, thalamus and substantia nigra (SN) were higher in PD patients than in healthy controls (p FDR ≤ 0.001); the mean values of the zero displacement probabilities (RTOP, RTAP, and RTPP) in the bilateral caudate, pallidum, putamen and thalamus were lower in PD patients (p FDR p FDR r = -0.56, p FDR = 0.027), RTOP in the bilateral and contralateral putamen (r = -0.58, p FDR = 0.019; r = -0.57, p FDR = 0.024) were negatively correlated with UPDRS III motor scores.ConclusionMAP MRI outperformed the conventional DTI in the diagnosis of PD and evaluation of the disease severity.
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.