1 Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, 637000 Nanchong, Sichuan, China
2 Department of Neurology, North Sichuan Medical College, 637000 Nanchong, Sichuan, China
3 Department of Radiology, Qionglai Medical Centre Hospital, 611530 Chengdu, Sichuan, China
Abstract
Volume alterations in the parietal subregion have received less attention in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and their role in predicting conversion of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD and cognitively normal (CN) to MCI remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to assess the volumetric variation of the parietal subregion at different cognitive stages in AD and to determine the role of parietal subregions in CN and MCI conversion.
We included 662 participants from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database, including 228 CN, 221 early MCI (EMCI), 112 late MCI (LMCI), and 101 AD participants. We measured the volume of the parietal subregion based on the Human Brainnetome Atlas (BNA-246) using voxel-based morphometry among individuals at various stages of AD and the progressive and stable individuals in CN and MCI. We then calculated the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to test the ability of parietal subregions to discriminate between different cognitive groups. The Cox proportional hazard model was constructed to determine which specific parietal subregions, alone or in combination, could be used to predict progression from MCI to AD and CN to MCI. Finally, we examined the relationship between the cognitive scores and parietal subregion volume in the diagnostic groups.
The left inferior parietal lobule (IPL)_6_5 (rostroventral area 39) showed the best ability to discriminate between patients with AD and those with CN (AUC = 0.688). The model consisting of the left IPL_6_4 (caudal area 40) and bilateral IPL_6_5 showed the best combination for predicting the CN progression to MCI. The left IPL_6_1 (caudal area 39) showed the best predictive power in predicting the progression of MCI to AD. Certain subregions of the volume correlated with cognitive scales.
Subregions of the angular gyrus are essential in the early onset and subsequent development of AD, and early detection of the volume of these regions may be useful in identifying the tendency to develop the disease and its treatment.
Keywords
- neuroimaging
- mild cognitive impairment
- brain subregion
- angular gyrus
- conversion
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most prominent form of dementia, typically in the elderly, and is linked to the progression of brain volume loss and deterioration of cognitive function with age [1, 2]. The progressive deterioration of the cerebrum and cognition constitutes the AD continuum [3]. Within this continuum, the earliest symptomatic phase is designated as mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which has an estimated annual conversion rate of 10–15% to AD [2, 4]. The degree of memory and cognition impairment in individuals with MCI is intermediate between that of patients with AD and in individuals who are cognitively normal (CN). However, despite this impairment, their functional capacity remains intact [5, 6]. In addition, patients with late MCI (LMCI) exhibit a rapid and pronounced decline in memory, positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, elevated white-matter hyperintensities, and distinctive alterations in brain functional connectivity when compared to those with early MCI (EMCI) [7, 8, 9]. Therefore, the MCI period represents a pivotal stage in developing neuro biomarkers with the potential to guide diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive approaches for AD.
Structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) represents a significant non-invasive approach for investigating structural alterations in the brain related to AD and MCI [10]. The involvement of brain regions is distinct at various stages of AD, with grey matter abnormalities initially affecting the hippocampus and amygdala and spreading to the parietal and frontal lobes as the disease progresses [11, 12]. The fluctuations in the level of Amyloid beta (A
The parietal lobe is a polymodal area, that has reported alterations in structural, metabolic, and functional characteristics in AD, predominantly in the posterior parietal cortex [34, 35, 36, 37]. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study of the parietal lobes of patients with AD have emphasized its role in various cognitive functions, and the integrity of cognition-related brain connections [38]. Recent neuroimaging research elaborated on the importance of the “compensatory mechanism” in the temporoparietal junction, which is comprised of the angular and the supramarginal gyrus, on the relationship between the anosognosia with AD and default mode network [39]. Brain function changes in the inferior parietal lobule are reported in patients with MCI [40]. Notably, the parietal lobe could predict the development of AD. Hypometabolism of the left precuneus and posterior cingulate cortex may be a reliable marker for converting to AD [41]. Hypometabolism in other parietal areas, such as the parietal-temporal and inferior parietal lobe regions, was also a valid biomarker for distinguishing MCI at risk of developing AD dementia from stable MCI [42, 43]. Chen et al. [44] demonstrated a significant reduction in grey matter volume in the superior parietal gyrus, inferior parietal gyrus, supramarginal gyrus, angular gyrus, and precuneus gyrus in individuals with progressive MCI (pMCI) compared to those with stable MCI (sMCI). Additionally, patients with progressive preclinical AD demonstrate atrophy of parietal structures [45]. However, the role of the volume of the parietal subregion in predicting the progression from CN to MCI and from MCI to AD remains unknown.
The Human Brainnetome Atlas (BNA-246), is a refined cross-validated atlas with more elaborate anatomical and functional connection modes for each area of the brain and contains 246 subregions in both hemispheres [46, 47]. This study aimed to assess changes in the parietal subregion described by the BNA-246 in various stages of AD and identify the most predictive parietal subregion progression from MCI to AD and CN to MCI. We measured volume differences in subregions between LMCI and EMCI, CN and AD, LMCI and AD, CN and EMCI, pMCI and sMCI, and progressive CN (pCN) and stable CN (sCN). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to identify the best parietal subregion for differentiating between the AD, LMCI, EMCI, and CN groups. Additionally, the Cox proportional hazard models were applied to determine which specific parietal subregions, alone or in combination, could be used to predict progression from MCI to AD, and CN to MCI. Finally, we evaluated the correlation between cognition and the volume of the subregions in the four diagnostic groups. We hypothesize that certain subregions in the inferior parietal gyrus play an important role in differentiating between the different stages of AD and have a strong performance in predicting CN and MCI progression.
The demographic and neuroimaging data used in the study were obtained from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (https://adni.loni.usc.edu). ADNI, launched in 2003, is an innovative public-private partnership, led by the Principal Investigator Michael W. Weiner, MD. Its original goal was to collate demographics, neuropsychological assessments, blood and CSF biological markers, genetic data, positron emission tomography (PET), and serial MRI to determine the development of MCI and early AD. Participants for the ADNI were recruited at various sites in Canada and the USA. More detailed information is accessible at https://adni.loni.usc.edu.
We recruited 662 individuals from the ADNI 2 and ADNI-GO. The participants selected for this study included individuals with CN (n = 228), EMCI (n = 221), LMCI (n = 112), and AD dementia (n = 101). All participants had completed neuropsychological assessments, including the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive (ADAS-cog 13), and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). T1-weighted MRI imaging was also available.
The participants were classified based on several cognitive scores, following the inclusion criteria provided by ADNI. CN participants had an MMSE score of 24–30 and a CDR score of 0 [23]. Individuals with MCI had subjective memory impairment reported by the patients, clinicians, or partners, an MMSE score of 24–30, a CDR score of 0, retained the function to maintain activities of daily living, and had no dementia. Individuals with MCI were further categorized as EMCI and LMCI based on their performance on the Wechsler Memory Scale’s Logical Memory II subscale adjusted for years of education (including ImRec and DelRec) (EMCI: 9–11 for
The downloaded scans from ADNI were preprocessed with B1 non-uniformity correction, N3 bias field correction, and gradwarping corrections. The whole brain-based voxel-based morphometry (VBM) analysis was conducted using the computational anatomy toolbox (CAT12.8.2 (r2170) package, https://neuro-jena.github.io/cat/ [49]) and Statistical Parametric Mapping version 12 (SPM12, Wellcome Trust Center for Neuroimaging, London, UK; https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/SPM) in MATLAB R2022b (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA, [50]). First, the download images were input into SPM12 and manually repositioned to the standard AP/SI/LR orientations. Next, the 3D images were segmented into CSF, white matter, and gray matter (GM) in the CAT 12 package. Meanwhile, the total intracranial volume (TIV) was calculated. The GM images of all the participants were then spatially normalized into the 1.5-mm Montreal Neurological Institute space using the DARTEL algorithm, Finally, the GM images were scaled using Jacobian matrices and smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of 8
The processed GM images served to extract subregional volumes. The parietal lobe was partitioned into four regions: superior parietal lobule (SPL), inferior parietal lobule (IPL), Precuneus (Pcun), and postcentral gyrus (PoG) as per the BNA-246 [47]. Furthermore, these regions were subdivided into several subregions; SPL, IPL, Pcun, and PoG were divided into 5, 6, 4, and 4 functional subregions, respectively. Therefore, in each hemisphere, the cortex of the parietal lobe was segmented into 19 subregions. Details about the subregions are provided inTable 1, ([46], reproduced with permission from [51]).
| Brain regions and subregions of the parietal lobe | Anatomical and modified Cyto-architectonic descriptions | |
| SPL, Superior Parietal Lobule | ||
| SPL_L(R)_5_1* | A7r, rostral area 7 | |
| SPL_L(R)_5_2 | A7c, caudal area 7 | |
| SPL_L(R)_5_3 | A5l, lateral area 5 | |
| SPL_L(R)_5_4 | A7pc, postcentral area 7 | |
| SPL_L(R)_5_5 | A7ip, intraparietal area 7 (hIP3) | |
| IPL, Inferior Parietal Lobule | ||
| IPL_L(R)_6_1 | A39c, caudal area 39 (PGp) | |
| IPL_L(R)_6_2 | A39rd, rostrodorsal area 39 (Hip3) | |
| IPL_L(R)_6_3 | A40rd, rostrodorsal area 40 (PFt) | |
| IPL_L(R)_6_4 | A40c, caudal area 40 (PFm) | |
| IPL_L(R)_6_5 | A39rv, rostroventral area 39 (PGa) | |
| IPL_L(R)_6_6 | A40rv, rostroventral area 40 (PFop) | |
| Pcun, Precuneus | ||
| PCun_L(R)_4_1 | A7m, medial area 7 (PEp) | |
| PCun_L(R)_4_2 | A5m, medial area 5 (PEm) | |
| PCun_L(R)_4_3 | dmPOS, dorsomedial parietooccipital sulcus (PEr) | |
| PCun_L(R)_4_4 | A31, area 31 (Lc1) | |
| PoG, Postcentral Gyrus | ||
| PoG_L(R)_4_1 | A1/2/3ulhf, area 1/2/3 (upper limb, head and face region) | |
| PoG_L(R)_4_2 | A1/2/3tonIa, area 1/2/3 (tongue and larynx region) | |
| PoG_L(R)_4_3 | A2, area 2 | |
| PoG_L(R)_4_4 | A1/2/3tru, area1/2/3 (trunk region) | |
* SPL_L(R)_5_1 and SPL_L_5_1 in left hemisphere or SPL_R_5_1 in right hemisphere. The other subregions have the same expression. BNA-246, the Human Brainnetome Atlas.
Statistical analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solutions) Statistics software version 25 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA, [52]). All the continuous variables are summarized as the median (interquartile range). The distributions of sex and APOE
All the demographics and cognitive features of the individuals are shown in Table 2. The level of education (H = 6.36, p = 0.095) did not differ significantly between all groups. The sex composition of the four groups differed significantly (X2 = 8.248, p = 0.041). However, none of the observed differences were statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. The distribution of APOE
| CN (228) | EMCI (221) | LMCI (112) | AD (101) | |
| Age | 76 (11) | 72 (10) | 73 (11) | 76 (11) |
| Sex (F/M) | 117/111 | 89/132 | 57/55 | 40/61 |
| Education (years) | 16 (4) | 16 (4) | 16.5 (2) | 16 (4) |
| MMSE | 29 (2) | 28 (3) | 27 (4) | 22 (5) |
| ADAS–cog 13 | 9 (5) | 11 (8) | 20 (11) | 32 (13) |
| FAQ | 0 (0) | 11 (8) | 20 (11) | 15 (11) |
| CDR | 0 (0) | 0.5 (0) | 0.5 (0) | 1 (0.5) |
| APOE | 65/163 | 90/131 | 68/44 | 66/35 |
| Progressive/stable | 52/176 | 32/189 | 53/59 |
The continuous variables are presented as the median (interquartile range). Abbreviations: CN, cognitively normals; EMCI, early mild cognitive impairment; LMCI, late mild cognitive impairment; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; F, Female; M, Male; APOE, apolipoprotein E gene; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; ADAS–cog, Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale; FAQ, Functional Activities Questionnaire; CDR, Clinical Dementia Rating.
A total of 52 individuals with CN at baseline progressed to MCI within approximately six years, while 85 patients with MCI at baseline progressed to AD within approximately three years (Table 3). There was no significant difference in sex distribution and education level between the sCN and pCN groups (X2 = 0.047, p = 0.829; Z = 1.517, p = 0.129), as well as the sMCI and pMCI groups (X2 = 0.005, p = 0.946; Z = –0.64, p = 0.522). However, the age was significantly higher in the pCN group than the sCN group (Z = –3.352, p = 0.001). Similarly, the age was significantly higher in the pMCI group than the sMCI group (Z = –2.186, p = 0.029).
| pCN (52) | sCN (176) | pMCI (85) | sMCI (248) | |
| Age | 79 (8) | 75.5 (10) | 74 (10) | 71.5 (11) |
| Sex (F/M) | 26/26 | 91/85 | 37/48 | 109/139 |
| Education (years) | 16 (4) | 16 (4) | 16 (4) | 16 (4) |
| Follow-up (years) | 6.3 | 7 | 3.2 | 5 |
The continuous variables are presented as the median (interquartile range) or mean
The comparison of volumes in parietal regions and subregions among the four diagnosed groups is shown in Table 4. All p-values indicate the results after correction using the Bonferroni method. Significant differences in volumes of the Pcun, IPL, PoG and SPL were observed between the four groups, as indicated by the ANCOVA results (all p
| CN-EMCI | EMCI-LMCI | LMCI-AD | CN-AD | |||||||
| p | average value difference | p | average value difference | p | average value difference | p | average value difference | p | ||
| SPL | 0.000** | –0.183 | 0.653 | 0.343 | 0.085 | 0.382 | 0.156 | 0.542 | 0.002* | |
| SPL_L_5_1 | 0.024* | –0.030 | 0.297 | 0.034 | 0.425 | 0.023 | 1 | 0.027 | 1.000 | |
| SPL_R_5_1 | 0.010* | –0.006 | 1 | 0.039 | 0.998 | 0.055 | 0.653 | 0.088 | 0.022* | |
| SPL_L_5_2 | 0.024* | –0.008 | 1 | 0.034 | 0.617 | 0.029 | 1 | 0.054 | 0.086 | |
| SPL_R_5_2 | 0.007* | –0.023 | 1 | 0.031 | 0.962 | 0.050 | 0.367 | 0.058 | 0.086 | |
| SPL_L_5_3 | 0.010* | –0.013 | 1 | 0.040 | 0.309 | 0.029 | 1 | 0.057 | 0.071 | |
| SPL_R_5_3 | 0.001* | –0.018 | 1 | 0.033 | 0.267 | 0.038 | 0.376 | 0.053 | 0.019* | |
| SPL_L_5_4 | 0.038* | –0.032 | 0.347 | 0.032 | 0.705 | 0.027 | 1 | 0.028 | 1 | |
| SPL_R_5_4 | 0.011* | –0.028 | 0.665 | 0.025 | 1 | 0.053 | 0.304 | 0.049 | 0.225 | |
| SPL_L_5_5 | 0.057 | –0.003 | 1 | 0.021 | 1 | 0.026 | 1 | 0.045 | 0.119 | |
| SPL_R_5_5 | 0.001* | –0.021 | 1 | 0.053 | 0.197 | 0.051 | 0.553 | 0.083 | 0.011* | |
| IPL | 0.000** | 0.385 | 1 | 1.215 | 0.022* | 2.287 | 0.000** | 3.887 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_L_6_1 | 0.000** | 0.027 | 1 | 0.142 | 0.039* | 0.133 | 0.223 | 0.302 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_R_6_1 | 0.000** | 0.036 | 1 | 0.073 | 1 | 0.308 | 0.000** | 0.417 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_L_6_2 | 0.000** | –0.017 | 1 | 0.058 | 0.762 | 0.107 | 0.130 | 0.148 | 0.002* | |
| IPL_R_6_2 | 0.000** | 0.021 | 1 | 0.046 | 1 | 0.119 | 0.099 | 0.186 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_L_6_3 | 0.000** | 0.015 | 1 | 0.107 | 0.084 | 0.142 | 0.045* | 0.264 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_R_6_3 | 0.000** | 0.008 | 1 | 0.058 | 1 | 0.221 | 0.001* | 0.286 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_L_6_4 | 0.000** | 0.049 | 1 | 0.158 | 0.004* | 0.097 | 0.508 | 0.305 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_R_6_4 | 0.000** | 0.060 | 1 | 0.152 | 0.041* | 0.202 | 0.021* | 0.414 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_L_6_5 | 0.000** | 0.061 | 1 | 0.212 | 0.012* | 0.327 | 0.001* | 0.600 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_R_6_5 | 0.000** | 0.078 | 0.493 | 0.073 | 1 | 0.313 | 0.000** | 0.465 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_L_6_6 | 0.000** | –0.020 | 1 | 0.113 | 0.235 | 0.184 | 0.037* | 0.278 | 0.000** | |
| IPL_R_6_6 | 0.011* | 0.067 | 1 | 0.022 | 1 | 0.134 | 0.487 | 0.223 | 0.006* | |
| Pcun | 0.000** | –0.443 | 0.095 | 0.466 | 0.231 | 1.050 | 0.001* | 1.073 | 0.000** | |
| PCun_L_4_1 | 0.000** | –0.063 | 0.071 | 0.058 | 0.369 | 0.082 | 0.182 | 0.076 | 0.133 | |
| PCun_R_4_1 | 0.001* | –0.034 | 0.574 | 0.036 | 0.946 | 0.072 | 0.118 | 0.074 | 0.042* | |
| PCun_L_4_2 | 0.112 | –0.039 | 0.551 | 0.035 | 1 | 0.033 | 1 | 0.029 | 1 | |
| PCun_R_4_2 | 0.000** | –0.034 | 0.955 | 0.045 | 0.737 | 0.097 | 0.044* | 0.108 | 0.004* | |
| PCun_L_4_3 | 0.001* | –0.068 | 0.452 | 0.039 | 1 | 0.168 | 0.023* | 0.139 | 0.039* | |
| PCun_R_4_3 | 0.000** | –0.114 | 0.081 | 0.067 | 1 | 0.207 | 0.016* | 0.161 | 0.051 | |
| PCun_L_4_4 | 0.000** | –0.034 | 1 | 0.115 | 0.050 | 0.146 | 0.037* | 0.227 | 0.000** | |
| PCun_R_4_4 | 0.000** | –0.057 | 1 | 0.071 | 1 | 0.245 | 0.001* | 0.259 | 0.000** | |
| PoG | 0.010 | –0.386 | 0.039* | 0.230 | 1 | 0.303 | 0.931 | 0.146 | 1 | |
| PoG_L_4_1 | 0.161 | –0.065 | 0.210 | 0.035 | 1 | 0.028 | 1 | –0.002 | 1 | |
| PoG_R_4_1 | 0.077 | –0.077 | 0.076 | 0.023 | 1 | 0.036 | 1 | –0.017 | 1 | |
| PoG_L_4_2 | 0.012* | –0.016 | 1 | 0.092 | 0.024* | –0.020 | 1 | 0.056 | 0.626 | |
| PoG_R_4_2 | 0.340 | –0.029 | 1 | 0.022 | 1 | 0.037 | 1 | 0.030 | 1 | |
| PoG_L_4_3 | 0.009* | –0.035 | 0.950 | 0.040 | 1 | 0.072 | 0.334 | 0.077 | 0.124 | |
| PoG_R_4_3 | 0.028* | –0.041 | 1 | 0.006 | 1 | 0.109 | 0.105 | 0.074 | 0.402 | |
| PoG_L_4_4 | 0.030* | –0.063 | 0.023* | 0.013 | 1 | 0.020 | 1 | –0.030 | 1 | |
| PoG_R_4_4 | 0.003* | –0.060 | 0.004* | –0.001 | 1 | 0.020 | 1 | –0.041 | 0.482 | |
*p
When comparing the volume of different parietal subregions, individuals with EMCI showed a significant increase in volume in two subregions compared to individuals with CN. On the other hand, individuals with LMCI exhibited significantly reduced volumes in five subregions compared to the EMCI group. Furthermore, individuals with AD showed significant volume reductions in twelve subregions compared to those with LMCI. When compared to individuals with CN, those with AD showed significant volume loss in twenty subregions.
Table 5 provides a comparison of the volume of parietal subregions between individuals with pCN and sCN as well as those with pMCI and sMCI. The pCN group exhibited significantly reduced volumes in the SPL (p = 0.032), IPL (p = 0.007), and POG (p = 0.012), as well as seven subregions, compared to the sCN group. Similarly, the pMCI groups showed a significant reduction in volume in the SPL (p = 0.016), IPL (p = 0.01), Pcun (p = 0.036), and nine subregions compared to sMCI group. Detailed information regarding the parietal region and subregion volumes for progressive and stable individuals of CN and MCI can be found in Supplementary Table 2.
| sCN-pCN | sMCI-pMCI | ||||
| average value difference | p | average value difference | p | ||
| SPL | 0.366 | 0.032* | 0.377 | 0.016* | |
| SPL_L_5_1 | 0.028 | 0.261 | 0.034 | 0.122 | |
| SPL_R_5_1 | 0.009 | 0.803 | 0.007 | 0.821 | |
| SPL_L_5_2 | 0.055 | 0.031* | 0.066 | 0.003* | |
| SPL_R_5_2 | 0.075 | 0.007* | 0.046 | 0.055 | |
| SPL_L_5_3 | 0.032 | 0.234 | 0.048 | 0.040* | |
| SPL_R_5_3 | 0.028 | 0.186 | 0.027 | 0.173 | |
| SPL_L_5_4 | 0.042 | 0.112 | 0.046 | 0.057 | |
| SPL_R_5_4 | 0.046 | 0.101 | 0.017 | 0.504 | |
| SPL_L_5_5 | 0.030 | 0.194 | 0.028 | 0.157 | |
| SPL_R_5_5 | 0.021 | 0.552 | 0.057 | 0.032* | |
| IPL | 1.350 | 0.007* | 1.237 | 0.010* | |
| IPL_L_6_1 | 0.086 | 0.208 | 0.156 | 0.007* | |
| IPL_R_6_1 | 0.137 | 0.069 | 0.062 | 0.362 | |
| IPL_L_6_2 | 0.028 | 0.551 | 0.071 | 0.101 | |
| IPL_R_6_2 | 0.100 | 0.068 | 0.124 | 0.004* | |
| IPL_L_6_3 | 0.092 | 0.092 | 0.082 | 0.104 | |
| IPL_R_6_3 | 0.087 | 0.151 | 0.125 | 0.019* | |
| IPL_L_6_4 | 0.010 | 0.856 | 0.120 | 0.024* | |
| IPL_R_6_4 | 0.066 | 0.355 | 0.177 | 0.006* | |
| IPL_L_6_5 | 0.304 | 0.001* | 0.148 | 0.060 | |
| IPL_R_6_5 | 0.227 | 0.001* | 0.112 | 0.074 | |
| IPL_L_6_6 | 0.101 | 0.165 | 0.075 | 0.240 | |
| IPL_R_6_6 | 0.113 | 0.171 | 0.014 | 0.840 | |
| Pcun | 0.456 | 0.112 | 0.517 | 0.036* | |
| PCun_L_4_1 | 0.023 | 0.561 | 0.059 | 0.091 | |
| PCun_R_4_1 | 0.035 | 0.299 | 0.031 | 0.266 | |
| PCun_L_4_2 | 0.049 | 0.172 | 0.046 | 0.154 | |
| PCun_R_4_2 | 0.049 | 0.203 | 0.046 | 0.166 | |
| PCun_L_4_3 | 0.069 | 0.280 | 0.058 | 0.265 | |
| PCun_R_4_3 | 0.118 | 0.129 | 0.118 | 0.056 | |
| PCun_L_4_4 | –0.014 | 0.806 | 0.093 | 0.048* | |
| PCun_R_4_4 | 0.098 | 0.171 | 0.065 | 0.231 | |
| POG | 0.572 | 0.012* | 0.052 | 0.789 | |
| PoG_L_4_1 | 0.069 | 0.159 | –0.002 | 0.958 | |
| PoG_R_4_1 | 0.066 | 0.191 | 0.006 | 0.882 | |
| PoG_L_4_2 | 0.097 | 0.025* | –0.024 | 0.501 | |
| PoG_R_4_2 | 0.113 | 0.010* | –0.016 | 0.641 | |
| PoG_L_4_3 | 0.070 | 0.104 | 0.037 | 0.272 | |
| PoG_R_4_3 | 0.114 | 0.018* | 0.038 | 0.381 | |
| PoG_L_4_4 | 0.012 | 0.723 | 0.010 | 0.750 | |
| PoG_R_4_4 | 0.031 | 0.307 | 0.004 | 0.869 | |
Abbreviations: pCN, progressive cognitively normals; sCN, stable cognitively normals; pMCI, progressive mild cognitive impairment; sMCI, stable mild cognitive impairment. *p
Table 6 provides the AUC values for the four comparison groups. In all the subregions, the left IPL_6_5 (rostroventral area 39) exhibited the best discrimination between AD and CN, with an AUC of 0.688 (Fig. 1). The anatomical location of the left IPL_6_5 is shown in Fig. 2.
| Subregion | EMCI VS CN | EMCI VS LMCI | LMCI VS AD | AD VS CN | ||||
| AUC | p | AUC | p | AUC | p | AUC | p | |
| SPL_L_5_1 | 0.604 | 0.000** | 0.592 | 0.006* | 0.543 | 0.280 | 0.540 | 0.251 |
| SPL_R_5_1 | 0.570 | 0.011* | 0.563 | 0.060 | 0.589 | 0.025* | 0.590 | 0.009* |
| SPL_L_5_2 | 0.586 | 0.002* | 0.589 | 0.008* | 0.540 | 0.314 | 0.547 | 0.177 |
| SPL_R_5_2 | 0.602 | 0.000** | 0.586 | 0.010* | 0.543 | 0.273 | 0.533 | 0.342 |
| SPL_L_5_3 | 0.580 | 0.004* | 0.585 | 0.011* | 0.574 | 0.062 | 0.575 | 0.029* |
| SPL_R_5_3 | 0.628 | 0.000** | 0.594 | 0.005* | 0.602 | 0.010* | 0.586 | 0.013* |
| SPL_L_5_4 | 0.614 | 0.000** | 0.579 | 0.018* | 0.572 | 0.068 | 0.539 | 0.254 |
| SPL_R_5_4 | 0.618 | 0.000** | 0.570 | 0.037* | 0.596 | 0.015* | 0.562 | 0.075 |
| SPL_L_5_5 | 0.556 | 0.041* | 0.568 | 0.043* | 0.569 | 0.083 | 0.580 | 0.021* |
| SPL_R_5_5 | 0.613 | 0.000** | 0.613 | 0.001* | 0.600 | 0.012* | 0.586 | 0.013* |
| IPL_L_6_1 | 0.582 | 0.003* | 0.642 | 0.000** | 0.542 | 0.294 | 0.600 | 0.004* |
| IPL_R_6_1 | 0.580 | 0.003* | 0.577 | 0.021* | 0.632 | 0.001* | 0.628 | 0.000** |
| IPL_L_6_2 | 0.582 | 0.003* | 0.572 | 0.031* | 0.586 | 0.030* | 0.585 | 0.014* |
| IPL_R_6_2 | 0.562 | 0.023* | 0.571 | 0.035* | 0.589 | 0.024* | 0.604 | 0.003* |
| IPL_L_6_3 | 0.588 | 0.001* | 0.617 | 0.000** | 0.597 | 0.015* | 0.637 | 0.000** |
| IPL_R_6_3 | 0.595 | 0.000** | 0.583 | 0.013* | 0.634 | 0.001* | 0.636 | 0.000** |
| IPL_L_6_4 | 0.560 | 0.028* | 0.638 | 0.000** | 0.567 | 0.092 | 0.644 | 0.000** |
| IPL_R_6_4 | 0.551 | 0.064 | 0.618 | 0.000** | 0.590 | 0.023* | 0.651 | 0.000** |
| IPL_L_6_5 | 0.578 | 0.004* | 0.653 | 0.000** | 0.618 | 0.003* | 0.688 | 0.000** |
| IPL_R_6_5 | 0.559 | 0.030* | 0.585 | 0.011* | 0.628 | 0.001* | 0.659 | 0.000** |
| IPL_L_6_6 | 0.606 | 0.000** | 0.596 | 0.004* | 0.626 | 0.002* | 0.620 | 0.001* |
| IPL_R_6_6 | 0.588 | 0.001* | 0.547 | 0.157 | 0.635 | 0.001* | 0.564 | 0.063 |
| PCun_L_4_1 | 0.630 | 0.000** | 0.599 | 0.003* | 0.564 | 0.107 | 0.551 | 0.139 |
| PCun_R_4_1 | 0.600 | 0.000** | 0.572 | 0.032* | 0.581 | 0.042* | 0.557 | 0.096 |
| PCun_L_4_2 | 0.606 | 0.000** | 0.565 | 0.051 | 0.556 | 0.160 | 0.516 | 0.647 |
| PCun_R_4_2 | 0.619 | 0.000** | 0.593 | 0.006* | 0.594 | 0.018* | 0.577 | 0.026* |
| PCun_L_4_3 | 0.642 | 0.000** | 0.566 | 0.051 | 0.593 | 0.019* | 0.526 | 0.458 |
| PCun_R_4_3 | 0.652 | 0.000** | 0.586 | 0.011* | 0.608 | 0.006* | 0.540 | 0.251 |
| PCun_L_4_4 | 0.623 | 0.000** | 0.630 | 0.000** | 0.569 | 0.082 | 0.573 | 0.034* |
| PCun_R_4_4 | 0.628 | 0.000** | 0.604 | 0.002* | 0.611 | 0.005* | 0.591 | 0.009* |
| PoG_L_4_1 | 0.662 | 0.000** | 0.564 | 0.057 | 0.561 | 0.127 | 0.467 | 0.342 |
| PoG_R_4_1 | 0.663 | 0.000** | 0.548 | 0.149 | 0.579 | 0.046* | 0.465 | 0.312 |
| PoG_L_4_2 | 0.606 | 0.000** | 0.599 | 0.003* | 0.521 | 0.595 | 0.509 | 0.786 |
| PoG_R_4_2 | 0.609 | 0.000** | 0.551 | 0.126 | 0.558 | 0.143 | 0.503 | 0.923 |
| PoG_L_4_3 | 0.634 | 0.000** | 0.590 | 0.007* | 0.591 | 0.022* | 0.546 | 0.184 |
| PoG_R_4_3 | 0.616 | 0.000** | 0.545 | 0.177 | 0.624 | 0.002* | 0.563 | 0.070 |
| PoG_L_4_4 | 0.664 | 0.000** | 0.565 | 0.051 | 0.568 | 0.086 | 0.462 | 0.272 |
| PoG_R_4_4 | 0.671 | 0.000** | 0.560 | 0.074 | 0.541 | 0.306 | 0.429 | 0.040* |
*p
Fig. 1. The ROC curve of left IPL_6_5 volume in differentiating between CN and EMCI (blue), EMCI and LMCI (gray), LMCI and AD (cyan), and CN and AD (red). AUC, area under the curve; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; EMCI, early mild cognitive impairment; LMCI, late early mild cognitive impairment; CN, cognitively normal; IPL, inferior parietal lobule; IPL_6_5, left rostroventral area 39 in inferior parietal lobule.
Fig. 2. The anatomical location of left IPL_6_5 (blue) and left IPL_6_1 (red) in the parietal lobe. (a) Coronal. (b) Sagittal. (c) Axial. IPL_6_5, rostroventral area 39 in inferior parietal lobule. IPL_6_1, caudal area 39 in inferior parietal lobule.
Cox proportional hazards regression analysis results showed, in the model of CN, a smaller volume of right SPL_5_2, SPL_5_4, and bilateral IPL_6_5 conferred a higher risk of progression from CN to MCI (Table 7) (all p
| Subregion | p-value | HRs (95.0% CI) |
| SPL_R_5_2 | 0.044 | 0.219 (0.050 to 0.959) |
| SPL_R_5_4 | 0.046 | 0.163 (0.027 to 0.968) |
| IPL_L_6_5 | 0.031 | 0.610 (0.390 to 0.955) |
| IPL_R_6_5 | 0.036 | 0.565 (0.332 to 0.962) |
Model 1 of the CN. Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio.
| Subregion | p-value | HRs (95.0% CI) |
| SPL_L_5_2 | 0.094 (0.029 to 0.301) | |
| SPL_R_5_2 | 0.003 | 0.188 (0.061 to 0.573) |
| SPL_L_5_3 | 0.002 | 0.124 (0.033 to 0.466) |
| SPL_R_5_3 | 0.023 | 0.193 (0.047 to 0.797) |
| SPL_L_5_4 | 0.019 | 0.272 (0.092 to 0.805) |
| SPL_L_5_5 | 0.009 | 0.133 (0.029 to 0.606) |
| SPL_R_5_5 | 0.002 | 0.191 (0.066 to 0.556) |
| IPL_L_6_1 | 0.365 (0.229 to 0.583) | |
| IPL_R_6_1 | 0.018 | 0.647 (0.450 to 0.929) |
| IPL_L_6_2 | 0.001 | 0.322 (0.165 to 0.626) |
| IPL_R_6_2 | 0.288 (0.155 to 0.536) | |
| IPL_L_6_3 | 0.007 | 0.475 (0.276 to 0.818) |
| IPL_R_6_3 | 0.001 | 0.423 (0.254 to 0.704) |
| IPL_L_6_4 | 0.389 (0.232 to 0.650) | |
| IPL_R_6_4 | 0.476 (0.315 to 0.719) | |
| IPL_L_6_5 | 0.514 (0.367 to 0.721) | |
| IPL_R_6_5 | 0.001 | 0.506 (0.339 to 0.755) |
| IPL_L_6_6 | 0.021 | 0.625 (0.419 to 0.931) |
| PCun_L_4_1 | 0.016 | 0.407 (0.196 to 0.846) |
| PCun_R_4_3 | 0.004 | 0.539 (0.353 to 0.825) |
| PCun_L_4_4 | 0.003 | 0.465 (0.282 to 0.768) |
| PCun_R_4_4 | 0.010 | 0.561 (0.362 to 0.869) |
| PoG_L_4_3 | 0.041 | 0.423 (0.185 to 0.966) |
Model 1 of the MCI. Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio.
| Subregion | p-value | HRs (95.0% CI) |
| IPL_L_6_5 | 0.016 | 0.465 (0.249 to 0.868) |
| IPL_R_6_5 | 0.030 | 0.430 (0.200 to 0.922) |
Model 2 of the CN adjusted for age, sex, TIV, and level of education. Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio; TIV, total intracranial volume.
| Subregion | p-value | HRs (95.0% CI) |
| SPL_L_5_2 | 0.040 (0.010 to 0.166) | |
| SPL_R_5_2 | 0.002 | 0.131 (0.036 to 0.473) |
| SPL_L_5_3 | 0.008 | 0.147 (0.036 to 0.607) |
| SPL_L_5_4 | 0.038 | 0.260 (0.073 to 0.928) |
| SPL_L_5_5 | 0.011 | 0.114 (0.022 to 0.604) |
| SPL_R_5_5 | 0.005 | 0.196 (0.062 to 0.617) |
| IPL_L_6_1 | 0.313 (0.180 to 0.546) | |
| IPL_R_6_1 | 0.042 | 0.644 (0.421 to 0.984) |
| IPL_L_6_2 | 0.001 | 0.284 (0.136 to 0.593) |
| IPL_R_6_2 | 0.195 (0.093 to 0.410) | |
| IPL_L_6_3 | 0.042 | 0.532 (0.289 to 0.978) |
| IPL_R_6_3 | 0.006 | 0.443 (0.248 to 0.790) |
| IPL_L_6_4 | 0.001 | 0.357 (0.199 to 0.641) |
| IPL_R_6_4 | 0.420 (0.263 to 0.670) | |
| IPL_L_6_5 | 0.496 (0.336 to 0.732) | |
| IPL_R_6_5 | 0.001 | 0.446 (0.276 to 0.718) |
| PCun_L_4_1 | 0.014 | 0.359 (0.158 to 0.813) |
| PCun_R_4_3 | 0.011 | 0.521 (0.315 to 0.862) |
| PCun_L_4_4 | 0.003 | 0.379 (0.198 to 0.723) |
| PCun_R_4_4 | 0.022 | 0.529 (0.306 to 0.912) |
Model 2 of the MCI adjusted for age, sex, TIV, and level of education. Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio.
| Subregion | p-value | HRs (95.0% CI) |
| IPL_L_6_4 | 0.001 | 5.671 (1.993 to 16.135) |
| IPL_L_6_5 | 0.043 | 0.524 (0.280 to 0.979) |
| IPL_R_6_5 | 0.018 | 0.342 (0.140 to 0.835) |
Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio.
| Subregion | p-value | HRs (95.0% CI) |
| IPL_L_6_1 | 0.365 (0.229 to 0.583) |
Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio.
Supplementary Tables 3,4,5 show the results of the correlation analysis of subregion volume and MMSE, FAQ, and ADAS-cog 13 score. A mild correlation was found between the MMSE score and four subregions in patients with EMCI, two subregions in patients with LMCI, and the three subregions in patients with AD (all p
This study employed voxel-based morphometry to investigate the atrophy trajectory of the parietal subregions across the AD continuum and to identify parietal subregions with significant predictive capacity for conversion from MCI to AD or from CN to MCI. The findings are summarized as follows.
(1) Areas of abnormal parietal volume spread widely with the further cognitive decline. Abnormalities in the volume of the PoG have been observed in early MCI, followed by declines in the volumes of the IPL, Pcun, and SPL.
(2) Subregion differentiation ability analysis revealed that the left IPL_6_5 is the best subregion to discriminate AD from CN (AUC = 0.688). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that the baseline bilateral IPL_6_5 volume predicted progression from CN to MCI during approximately six years of clinical follow-up. When including all baseline volumes as candidate predictors, forward stepwise Cox regression revealed that the combined predictive value of baseline the left IPL_6_4 and bilateral IPL_6_5 volume exhibits statistical significance in the CN model, meanwhile, only the left IPL_6_1 exhibits a significant predictive value in the MCI model.
(3) Correlation analysis showed a robust association between ADAS-Cog 13 and MMSE scores and most IPL and SPL subregions in individuals with MCI and AD. The FAQ score showed a significant correlation with the right IPL_6_2 in LMCI individuals.
The parietal lobe plays a crucial role in various higher cognitive processes and has extensive connections with other brain regions, such as the thalamus, prefrontal cortex, cingulate cortex, and (para)hippocampus [37, 53, 54], making it susceptible to degenerative lesions [55]. As previous studies have focused on subregions of the frontal lobe, hippocampus, and amygdala [15, 51], this research specifically investigates atrophy in the parietal subregion to gain a further understanding of the neuroimaging mechanisms underlying AD. The volume of the PoG was found to significantly increase in the early MCI group compared to the CN group. This could be a macroscopic manifestation of early compensatory mechanisms to counter impending brain damage [56, 57]. Neuroinflammation may also play a role, as evidence suggests that it peaks in the earliest stages of AD [58], and neuroinflammation has been observed in the inferior parietal cortex in early AD [59]. The Pcun and IPL shrink with cognitive decline, these results align with previous research that has noted volume loss in the Pcun and IPL during the early prodromal stages of AD [60].
The BNA-246 partitioned Brodmann Area 39 (BA 39) into three areas: caudal (IPL_6_1), rostrodorsal (IPL_6_2), and rostroventral (IPL_6_5). Similarly, BA 40 was partitioned into rostrodorsal (IPL_6_3), caudal (IPL_6_4), and rostroventral (IPL_6_6) areas. BA 39 corresponds to the angular gyrus (AG). Specifically, the caudal (IPL_6_1) and rostroventral (IPL_6_5) areas represent two major subregions of the AG with distinct cytoarchitectures, PGp and PGa, respectively. In our study, the left IPL_6_5 performed best in the distinction between CN and AD and could best differentiate between EMCI and LMCI (although the AUC was not high). This suggests that the left IPL_6_5 may play an important role in AD development. This conclusion is further supported by forward stepwise Cox regression, which revealed that the baseline volume change in the left IPL_6_4 combined with bilateral IPL_6_5 could predict CN progression to MCI. Researchers have examined the parietal lobe as a whole in previous studies of AD’s diagnosis and prediction [30, 55]. The posterior cingulate, the precuneus, the inferior parietal lobe, and the posterior parietal lobe, composition of the parietotemporal cortex, serve as reliable imaging biomarkers for discriminating between pMCI and sMCI in both sMRI and metabolic studies [42, 43, 44, 61]. However, it should be noted that these non-specific areas encompass various regions, including the AG, supramarginal gyrus (SMG), and BA 31 [62]. This could explain why the AG has not been emphasized in previous structural articles focusing on MCI discrimination. Our study provides further evidence that PGa of the AG may play a specific role in the onset of AD. This result indicated the importance of monitoring neuropathological changes in this structure during the pre-AD period to prevent further cognitive decline. BA40 corresponds to the SMG, and its involvement in the development of AD has been reported [63], but the present study is the first to report the association of caudal BA40 in CN conversion. Additionally, the volume change of the left IPL_6_1 is best in predicting the development of MCI into AD for approximately three years. Thus, on the other hand, PGp of the AG plays a key role in the evolution of MCI to AD. This result is consistent with those of previous study which reported that the left AG shows potential as a marker for monitoring the progression of amnestic MCI (aMCI) and cognitive decline [64].
AG is a higher-order associative cortical area engaged in the integration of multiple sensory systems [62], and it is anatomically and functionally connected to many regions of the brain [65]. Functional study has found significant reductions in AG connectivity to a wide range of brain regions such as the parietal, frontal, temporal, and occipital cortex in the pMCI group compared with the sMCI group [66]. Abnormal tau deposition in the middle frontal cortex, superior temporal cortex, and AG have been found in autopsies of individuals with AD [67]. Therefore, we hypothesize that there may be a widespread disruption of AG connectivity with other brain regions or abnormal protein deposition leading to structural atrophy of the AG, a change that plays a role in the onset and development of AD. PGp and PGa of the AG can be characterized by specific functional and connectivity patterns. The PGp demonstrates greater functional connectivity and fiber density with the (para)hippocampus and precuneus compared to PGa [62]. The closer anatomical and functional connectivity of the GpG with early AD-involved regions may explain why the left IPL_6_1 is more relevant in predicting the progression of MCI to AD. Another study found significant atrophy of the left hippocampus, temporal pole, and angular gyrus in AD compared with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia [68]. Further studies are needed for the specificity of the angular gyrus subregion in AD. The PGp is primarily involved in visual perception, while the PGa is more associated with integrating multisensory information [55]. Additionally, the AG is involved in word recognition, episodic and semantic retrieval, and mathematical cognition [69, 70].
In populations that age normally, hemispheric specialization is thought to contribute to the speed of processing information [71]. Brain atrophy in AD is bilateral, but may not be hemispherically symmetrical. Grey matter loss occurs earlier and more severely in the left hemisphere in AD [72]. It is reported that a wide range of brain structures, such as the hippocampus, amygdala, and caudate show asymmetric atrophy in AD and MCI [73, 74, 75]. The left side IPL_6_5 was more significantly atrophied than the right side when comparing AD and CN with EMCI and LMCI in our study. Although both sides significantly predicted the progression of CN to MCI, the left side had a greater HR than the right. Therefore, the angular gyrus shows asymmetry in the distinction between different stages of AD and in the predictive value of CN and MCI, with the left side being more significant. Amyloid deposition in the angular gyrus was asymmetric and associated with hypometabolism [76]. Another study reported asymmetric tau protein deposition in AD [77]. Thus, asymmetric atrophy of the angular gyrus may arise from asymmetric pathological changes. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the correlation between the asymmetry of grey matter atrophy in the subregion of the AG and protein deposition in the fortune. In our study, significant differences in IPL and Pcun volumes were observed between the EMCI and LMCI groups, as well as between the LMCI and AD groups. Correlations were also found between certain subregional volumes of the IPL and SPL and scores on the ADAS-Cog 13, FAQ, and MMSE scales in AD and MCI. The parietal lobe’s role as a sensory and motor region, with its connections to other brain regions, may explain these correlations with cognitive scales [53].
Although we have analyzed the subregions, providing a more detailed atrophy trajectory and subregional prediction of parietal in the AD continuum, the current study had certain limitations. First, this was a baseline state cross-sectional study, to confirm the results of this study, future longitudinal studies are necessary to comprehensively investigate the full course of parietal lobe atrophy. Second, due to the variability of different atlas, the use of other templates is necessary to validate the results of this study. Third, although structural studies can quantify brain volume, parietal hypometabolism is an important feature in AD. Future studies should combine structural (white matter, gray matter), functional connectivity, and metabolic information to reveal subregional pathological changes in the parietal lobes. Fourth, of all the parietal subregions, the left IPL_6_5 had the highest AUC value for discriminating between AD and CN (AUC value = 0.688), but this was only moderately discriminant. Fifth, although VBM can quantify the volume of grey matter, there is some error due to space standardization and matching of templates, etc., so a more accurate software, FreeSufer [78], should be used to validate the findings in this study. Finally, the recruitment of participants from different locations and ethnicities will be important for the replication of this experiment and the confirmation of its findings.
Among all the parietal subregions, the left IPL_6_5 exhibited the best effectiveness in differentiating between AD and CN. The Cox model consisting of the left IPL_6_4 and bilateral IPL_6_5 was most effective in predicting CN progression to MCI. Additionally, the left IPL_6_1 showed the best predictive power in predicting the progression of MCI to AD. Our data offers additional insights into the neurodevelopmental mechanisms of the parietal lobe in AD, highlighting the significant role played by the AG in the disease process.
MCI, mild cognitive impairment; EMCI, early mild cognitive impairment; LMCI, late mild cognitive impairment; SPL, superior parietal lobule; IPL, inferior parietal lobule; Pcun, precuneus; PoG, postcentral Gyrus; ADNI, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative; CDR, clinical dementia rating; ADRDA, Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; ADSC-cog, Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive; FAQ, Functional Activities Questionnaire.
The authors of this manuscript will make the raw data supporting the conclusions available to any qualified researcher without reservation.
FL and QM designed the research study and performed the research; FL wrote the original draft; CS and WY provided help and advice on the software and statistical methodology. All authors contributed to editorial changes in the manuscript. All authors have participated sufficiently in the work and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College (approval number: 2022ER452-1). The study was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The patient consent form was waived which was approved by IRB.
We are very grateful to the ADNI database and associated researchers for providing us with the data in this study.
This research received no external funding.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.31083/JIN25991.
References
Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


