Plasma Dynamics

Contains reports on three research projects.U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ACO2-78ET-51013)National Science Foundation (Grant ECS82-13430)U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Contract F33615-81-K-1426

Plasma Dynamics

Contains reports on six research projects.National Science Foundation (Grant ECS82-00646)National Science Foundation (Grant ECS82-13485)U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Contract F33615-81-K-1426)U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Contract F49620-83-C-0008)U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Contract AFOSR-84-0026)U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research (Contract N00014-83-K-2024)Sandia National Laboratory (Contract 31-5606)Sandia National Laboratory (Contract 48-5725)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ACO2-78ET-51013)National Science Foundation (Grant ECS82-13430

Plasma Dynamics

Contains reports on eight research projects split into two sections.National Science Foundation (Grant ENG79-07047)U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Grant AFOSR-77-3143D)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ACO2-78ET-51013)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ACO2-78ET-53073.AO02)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ACO2-78ET-53074)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ACO2-78ET-53076)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ACO2-78ET-51002

Plasma Dynamics

Contains reports on ten research projects divided into two sections.National Science Foundation (Grant ENG79-07047)U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Grant AFOSR-77-3143)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ACO2-78ET51013)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ASO2-78ET53073.AO02)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract ET-78-S-02-4682)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-AS02-78ET53074)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ASO2-78ET53050)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-AS02-78ET51002)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ASO2-78ET53076

Plasma Dynamics

Contains reports on six research projects.National Science Foundation (Grant ENG79-07047)U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Grant AFOSR77-3143D)U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Contract AFOSR82-0063)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ACO2-78-ET-51013)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-AC02-78ET-53073.A002

Plasma Dynamics

Contains reports on four research projects.National Science Foundation (Grant ECS82-13485)University of Maryland (Subcontract A200728)U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research (Grant AFOSR-84-0026B)U.S. Department of Energy (Contract DE-ACO2-78-ET-51013)National Science Foundation (Grant ECS82-13430

Clinical applicability of quantitative atrophy measures on MRI in patients suspected of Alzheimer's disease

Objectives: Neurodegeneration in suspected Alzheimer’s disease can be determined using visual rating or quantitative volumetric assessments. We examined the feasibility of volumetric measurements of gray matter (GMV) and hippocampal volume (HCV) and compared their diagnostic performance with visual rating scales in academic and non-academic memory clinics. Materials and methods: We included 231 patients attending local memory clinics (LMC) in the Netherlands and 501 of the academic Amsterdam Dementia Cohort (ADC). MRI scans were acquired using local protocols, including a T1-weighted sequence. Quantification of GMV and HCV was performed using FSL and FreeSurfer. Medial temporal atrophy and global atrophy were assessed with visual rating scales. ROC curves were derived to determine which measure discriminated best between cognitively normal (CN), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer’s dementia (AD). Results: Patients attending LMC (age 70.9 ± 8.9 years; 47% females; 19% CN; 34% MCI; 47% AD) were older, had more cerebrovascular pathology, and had lower GMV and HCV compared to those of the ADC (age 64.9 ± 8.2 years; 42% females; 35% CN, 43% MCI, 22% AD). While visual ratings were feasible in > 95% of scans in both cohorts, quantification was achieved in 94–98% of ADC, but only 68–85% of LMC scans, depending on the software. Visual ratings and volumetric outcomes performed similarly in discriminating CN vs AD in both cohorts. Conclusion: In clinical settings, quantification of GM and hippocampal atrophy currently fails in up to one-third of scans, probably due to lack of standardized acquisition protocols. Diagnostic accuracy is similar for volumetric measures and visual rating scales, making the latter suited for clinical practice. Summary statement: In a real-life clinical setting, volumetric assessment of MRI scans in dementia patients may require acquisition protocol optimization and does not outperform visual rating scales. Key Points: • In a real-life clinical setting, the diagnostic performance of visual rating scales is similar to that of automatic volumetric quantification and may be sufficient to distinguish Alzheimer’s disease groups. • Volumetric assessment of gray matter and hippocampal volumes from MRI scans of patients attending non-academic memory clinics fails in up to 32% of cases. • Clinical MR acquisition protocols should be optimized to improve the output of quantitative software for segmentation of Alzheimer’s disease–specific outcomes