Dataset Information

Imaging biomarkers of dementia: recommended visual rating scales with teaching cases.

ABSTRACT: The diagnostic work up of dementia may benefit from structured reporting of CT and/or MRI and the use of standardised visual rating scales. We advocate a more widespread use of standardised scales as part of the workflow in clinical and research evaluation of dementia. We propose routine clinical use of rating scales for medial temporal atrophy (MTA), global cortical atrophy (GCA) and white matter hyperintensities (WMH). These scales can be used for evaluation of both CT and MRI and are efficient in routine imaging assessment in dementia, and may improve the accuracy of diagnosis. Our review provides detailed imaging examples of rating increments in each of these scales and a separate teaching file. The radiologist should relate visual ratings to the clinical assessment and other biomarkers to assist the clinician in the diagnostic decision.

Teaching points

• Clinical dementia diagnostics would benefit from structured radiological reporting. • Standardised rating scales should be used in dementia assessment. • It is important to relate imaging findings to the clinically suspected diagnosis.

SUBMITTER: Wahlund LO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5265189 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Imaging biomarkers of dementia: recommended visual rating scales with teaching cases.

Wahlund Lars-Olof LO Westman Eric E van Westen Danielle D Wallin Anders A Shams Sara S Cavallin Lena L Larsson Elna-Marie EM

Insights into imaging 20161221 1

The diagnostic work up of dementia may benefit from structured reporting of CT and/or MRI and the use of standardised visual rating scales. We advocate a more widespread use of standardised scales as part of the workflow in clinical and research evaluation of dementia. We propose routine clinical use of rating scales for medial temporal atrophy (MTA), global cortical atrophy (GCA) and white matter hyperintensities (WMH). These scales can be used for evaluation of both CT and MRI and are efficien ...[more]

PMID: 28004274

Similar Datasets

Project description:Accurately distinguishing between different degenerative dementias during life is challenging but increasingly important with the prospect of disease-modifying therapies. Molecular biomarkers of dementia pathology are becoming available, but are not widely used in clinical practice. Conversely, structural neuroimaging is recommended in the evaluation of cognitive impairment. Visual assessment remains the primary method of scan interpretation, but in the absence of a structured approach, diagnostically relevant information may be under-utilized. This definitive, multi-centre study uses post-mortem confirmed cases as the gold standard to: (i) assess the reliability of six visual rating scales; (ii) determine their associated pattern of atrophy; (iii) compare their diagnostic value with expert scan assessment; and (iv) assess the accuracy of a machine learning approach based on multiple rating scales to predict underlying pathology. The study includes T1-weighted images acquired in three European centres from 184 individuals with histopathologically confirmed dementia (101 patients with Alzheimer's disease, 28 patients with dementia with Lewy bodies, 55 patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration), and scans from 73 healthy controls. Six visual rating scales (medial temporal, posterior, anterior temporal, orbito-frontal, anterior cingulate and fronto-insula) were applied to 257 scans (two raters), and to a subset of 80 scans (three raters). Six experts also provided a diagnosis based on unstructured assessment of the 80-scan subset. The reliability and time taken to apply each scale was evaluated. Voxel-based morphometry was used to explore the relationship between each rating scale and the pattern of grey matter volume loss. Additionally, the performance of each scale to predict dementia pathology both individually and in combination was evaluated using a support vector classifier, which was compared with expert scan assessment to estimate clinical value. Reliability of scan assessment was generally good (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.7), and average time to apply all six scales was <3 min. There was a very close association between the pattern of grey matter loss and the regions of interest each scale was designed to assess. Using automated classification based on all six rating scales, the accuracy (estimated using the area under the receiver-operator curves) for distinguishing each pathological group from controls ranged from 0.86-0.97; and from one another, 0.75-0.92. These results were substantially better than the accuracy of any single scale, at least as good as expert reads, and comparable to previous studies using molecular biomarkers. Visual rating scores from magnetic resonance images routinely acquired as part of the investigation of dementias, offer a practical, inexpensive means of improving diagnostic accuracy.

Project description:BackgroundRating scales like the visual analogue scale, VAS, and the verbal rating scale, VRS, are often used for pain assessments both in clinical work and in research, despite the lack of a gold standard. Interchangeability of recorded pain intensity captured in the two scales has been discussed earlier, but not in conjunction with taking the influence of pain etiology into consideration.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, patients with their pain classified according to its etiology (chronic/idiopathic, nociceptive and neuropathic pain) were consecutively recruited for self-assessment of their actual pain intensity using a continuous VAS, 0-100, and a discrete five-category VRS. The data were analyzed with a non-parametric statistical method, suitable for comparison of scales with different numbers of response alternatives.ResultsAn overlapping of the VAS records relative the VRS categories was seen in all pain groups. Cut-off positions for the VAS records related to the VRS categories were found lower in patients with nociceptive pain relative patients suffering from chronic/idiopathic and neuropathic pain. When comparing the VAS records transformed into an equidistant five-category scale with the VRS records, systematic disagreements between the scales was shown in all groups. Furthermore, in the test-retest a low percentage of the patients agreed to the same pain level on the VAS while the opposite hold for the VRS.ConclusionThe pain intensity assessments on VAS and VRS are in this study, not interchangeable due to overlap of pain records between the two scales, systematic disagreements when comparing the two scales and a low percentage intra-scale agreement. Furthermore, the lower VAS cut-off positions relative the VRS labels indicate different meaning of the rated pain intensity depending on pain etiology. It is also indicated that the scales have non-linear properties and that the two scales probably have different interpretation. Our findings are in favor of using the VRS in pain intensity assessments but if still the VAS is preferred, the VAS data should be analyzed as continuous using statistical methods suitable for ordinal data. Furthermore, our findings indicate a risk to over or under estimate the patient's perceived pain when interpreting condensed VAS data.

Dataset Information

Imaging biomarkers of dementia: recommended visual rating scales with teaching cases.

Teaching points

Publications

Imaging biomarkers of dementia: recommended visual rating scales with teaching cases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure