ReachRxResearch
Home
Research
Sign Up
Functional heterogeneity across structural MRI-based atrophy subtypes in Alzheimer’s disease
Back to Research Hub
  1. Home
  2. Research Hub
  3. Functional heterogeneity across structur…

Functional heterogeneity across structural MRI-based atrophy subtypes in Alzheimer’s disease

International Psychogeriatrics·August 7Open Access
Psychology, ClinicalLimited evidenceAlzheimer'S DiseaseCross-Sectional StudyElectroencephalographyResting-State FMRIStructural MRIOlder Adult

Summary

View source

What was studied

This cross-sectional multimodal neuroimaging study examined whether three MRI-derived structural atrophy subtypes of Alzheimer's disease (hippocampal-sparing [HpSp-MRI], typical [tAD-MRI], and limbic-predominant [LP-MRI]) show distinct functional profiles, using resting-state fMRI (intra- and internetwork connectivity) and EEG (spectral power and microstate dynamics) in 116 AD patients and 74 cognitively unimpaired controls.

Key findings

HpSp-MRI patients showed lower intranetwork connectivity than LP-MRI and tAD-MRI groups in the visual, somatomotor, and dorsal attention networks; LP-MRI and tAD-MRI differed in ventral attention network connectivity; LP-MRI had stronger internetwork connectivity in select network pairs; and EEG revealed a possible difference in microstate 3-to-1 transition between LP-MRI and tAD-MRI subtypes.

Study limitations

Cross-sectional design prevents causal or longitudinal inference about subtype progression. The sample size (116 AD patients across three subtypes) limits statistical power for subgroup analyses. EEG microstate findings were described as a "possible difference," suggesting preliminary or marginal significance.

Clinical implications

AD structural atrophy subtypes carry distinct functional brain network signatures — clinicians and researchers developing network-targeted interventions (e.g., brain stimulation) should consider subtype classification, as a one-size-fits-all approach may miss subgroup-specific targets.

Caveats

  • Age and sex distributions across subtypes are not reported in the abstract; findings may be confounded by demographic differences between subgroups.
  • EEG microstate findings are described as a 'possible difference,' suggesting results may not reach conventional statistical significance — interpret with caution.
  • Level of evidence set to 4 (case series / observational cross-sectional) given the non-interventional, cross-sectional, single-center design.
Show all 4
  • The study_design label 'Cross-Sectional Study' is applied based on abstract language; the paper uses the term 'multimodal neuroimaging and electrophysiological study' without specifying a formal design label.

Related Questions

Explore related topics

What are the functional connectivity differences between Alzheimer's disease atrophy subtypes on resting-state fMRI?How do hippocampal-sparing vs limbic-predominant Alzheimer's subtypes differ clinically and neurobiologically?Can brain network-targeted interventions like TMS or tDCS be personalized to Alzheimer's disease subtypes?

Publication Details

Year
2026
Journal
International Psychogeriatrics
Sample Size
n=190
Source
View article
Keep scrolling
More content below.
Up Next