z-logo
Premium
[IC‐P‐175]: 18F‐AV1451 TAU QUANTIFICATION WITHOUT MRI
Author(s) -
Bourgeat Pierrick,
Villemagne Victor L.,
Dore Vincent,
Masters Colin L.,
Ames David,
Rowe Christopher C.,
Salvado Olivier,
Fripp Jurgen
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.2550
Subject(s) - nuclear medicine , artificial intelligence , atlas (anatomy) , computer science , medicine , anatomy
of dysfunctional networks: anodal stimulation of the DMN (right inferior parietal lobe), cathodal stimulation of the SN (right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex). Changes from preto post-treatment in clinical scales and functional connectivity were defined as outcome measures. Outcomes from clinical scales were compared by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, while changes in connectivity were assessed with the Functional Connectivity Toolbox. A seed-to-voxel approach was used to assess connectivity differences between the stimulated node and the other network areas. Results:To date, 16 patients have completed the treatment. 8 patients were allocated to the anodal and 8 to the cathodal arm. Analysis of clinical-neuropsychological scores revealed a beneficial effect of anodal stimulation over cognition (Immediate recall of Rey Word Recognition test, Token test, Clock test and Semantic Fluency test; p<0.05), whereas cathodal stimulation resulted in amelioration of behavioral symptoms (Neuropsychiatric inventory; p<0.05). In the anodal arm, rsfMRI analysis revealed decreased connectivity between the stimulated parietal node and the posterior cingulate (cluster size: 142 voxels; cluster-wise FDR corrected; p<0.05) after tDCS. In the cathodal arm, no change in connectivity was detected between the stimulated node and SN nodes. Conclusions:These data suggest a different effect of the two neuromodulator paradigms over clinical and cognitive outcomes. Our results suggest that anodal tDCS may be more effective than cathodal tDCS in modulating cognition and intra-network connectivity of aberrant networks in AD. Further studies might clarify whether different paradigms or target networks could also be effective interventions in AD.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here