Diffuse Tract Damage in the Hemispheric Deep White Matter May Correlate with Global Cognitive Impairment and Callosal Atrophy in Patients with Extensive Leukoaraiosis

Article Figures & Data

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Fig 1.
Representative FA (A) and MD (B) histograms of the HDWM. In both histograms, averaging the histograms of 4 patients with almost normal cognitive function (MMSE 29–30) is represented in blue, whereas averaging the histograms of 4 patients with dementia (MMSE 10–16) is represented in red.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Fig 2.
Scatterplot of callosal mean FA values against MMSE scores in each patient.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Fig 3.
Schematic diagram of the intercorrelation between reduced HDWM DA, reduced callosal DA, callosal atrophy, and cognitive impairment.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Fig 4.
Result of voxel-based analysis of FA and MD maps by using TBSS. Orange shows where both FA reduction and MD increase had significant correlation with the MMSE score decline. Red or yellow shows where FA reduction or MD increase had significant correlation with the MMSE score decline, respectively. All results are adjusted for WML volume and white matter volume. Permutation-based inference on cluster size: t > 2, FWE-corrected P < .05; permutation number, 5000. Green is the mean FA skeleton, underneath the orange, red, and yellow. In the background is the mean FA image of the 24 patients in the study.

Table 1:

Correlation between HDWM DA or callosal parameters and cognitive scores^a

↵a Figures are Spearman ρ values.
↵b Significant after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (P < .05/36 = .00139).
↵c P = .0042.
↵d P = .007.
↵e P = .0021.
↵f P = .0014.

Table 2:

Correlation between HDWM DA or callosal parameters and cognitive scores evaluated with multiple regression analyses^a

↵a Figures are standardized regression coefficients between each of the HDWM DA or callosal parameters and each of the cognitive scores, adjusted for age, sex, WML volume, and white matter volume.
↵b Significant after Bonferroni correction (P < .05/28 = .0018).
↵c P = .002.
↵d P = .006.
↵e P = .02.
↵f P = .03.
↵g P = .003.
↵h White matter volume showed a weak contribution to the correlation between callosal MD and VFT (standard regression coefficient, 0.43; P =.046).

Table 3:

Correlation between HDWM DA and callosal parameters^a

HDWM DA	Callosal Mean FA	Callosal Mean MD	Callosal Volume
FA25	0.73^b	−0.69^b	0.71^b
Median FA	0.63^b	−0.56^c	0.72^b
Mean FA	0.70^b	−0.66^b	0.70^b
MD25	−0.71^b	0.69^b	−0.83^b
Median MD	−0.70^b	0.69^b	−0.76^b
Mean MD	−0.68^b	0.71^b	−0.74^b