Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Rating scale for the swallow tail sign. The rating scale for the swallow tail sign is detailed in this figure; arrows indicate the normal/abnormal swallow tail signs on SWI sequences.
- Fig 2.
Normal and abnormal swallow tail signs across scanners. Arrows indicate the normal swallow tail signs on SWI sequences.
Tables
Whole Cohort (n = 97) Controls (n = 21) LBD (n = 19) FTD (n = 20) AD (n = 20) MCI (n = 17) Mean age (yr) 65 ± 10 60 ± 6 72 ± 6 64 ± 11 72 ± 6 62 ± 12 Female (No.) (mean age) (yr) 45, 46%; 64 ± 11 10, 48%; 58 ± 5 5, 26%; 74 ± 65 10, 50%; 63 ± 13 12, 60%; 68 ± 8 8, 47%; 60 ± 12 Male (No.) (mean age) (yr) 52, 54%; 67 ± 10 11, 52%; 62 ± 6 14, 74%; 72 ± 6 10, 50%; 66 ± 9 8, 40%; 70 ± 13 9, 53%; 64 ± 11 MMSE (mean) 26 ± 4 30 ± 0 22 ± 3 27 ± 2 23 ± 4 28 ± 2 Hypertension (No.) (%) 8 (9) 3 (14) 0 1 (5) 2 (10) 2 (12) Diabetes (No.) (%) 2 (2) 1 (5) 0 0 1 (5) 0 Hyperlipidemia (No.) (%) 6 (7) 2 (10) 0 1 (5) 2 (10) 1 (6) CSF amyloid (median) (IQR) (ng/L) 575 (403–1250) 1160 (697–1370) – 565 (528–565) 391 (342–524) 737 (448–1138) CSF T-τ (median) (IQR) (ng/L) 52 (36–73) 274 (211–364) – 214 (129–214) 502 (398–873) 198 (129–417) CSF P-τ (median) (IQR) (ng/L) 307 (192–458) 55 (36–75) – 36 (22–36) 84 (61–115) 37 (28–67) CSF/serum albumin ratio (median) (IQR) 249 (153–322) 230 (166–345) – 322 (153–322) 307 (206–730) 155 (106–376) Note:—P-τ indicates phosphorylated τ; T-τ, total τ; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination.
↵a All patients, except 8 with LBD, had data on hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. CSF data were available for a subgroup of 56 patients (controls = 18; LBD = 0; FTD = 8; AD = 16; MCI = 14).
Karolinska University Hospital Lund University Hospital Avantoa Tim Trioa Achievab Skyraa Field strength 1.5T 3T 3T 3T TE (ms) 40 20 25 20 TR (ms) 49 28 17 27 Flip angle 15° 15° 15° 15° Section thickness (mm) 2.0 1.6 2 1.5 Patients (No.) (%) 43 (43) 37 (40) 9 (9) 8 (8) Controls (n = 21) (No.) (%) 12 (57) 9 (43) – – LBD (n = 19) (No.) (%) 4 (21) 5 (26) 2 (11) 8 (42) FTD (n = 20) (No.) (%) 7 (35) 6 (30) 7 (35) – AD (n = 20) (No.) (%) 13 (65) 7 (35) – – MCI (n = 17) (No.) (%) 7 (41) 10 (59) – – Controls (n = 21) LBD (n = 19) FTD (n = 20) AD (n = 20) MCI (n = 17) Abnormal, 1.5T and 3T (No.) (%) Rater 1 2 (10) 9 (47) 7 (35) 5 (25) 2 (12) Rater 2 5 (24) 18 (95) 8 (40) 9 (45) 4 (24) Consensus 2 (10) 12 (63) 7 (35) 5 (25) 1 (6) 1.5T n = 12 n = 4 n = 7 n = 13 n = 7 Abnormal, 1.5T (No. (%) Rater 1 2 (17) 1 (25) 3 (43) 3 (23) 2 (29) Rater 2 4 (33) 4 (100) 1 (14) 6 (46) 1 (14) Consensus 2 (17) 3 (75) 4 (57) 3 (23) 1 (14) 3T n = 9 n = 15 n = 13 n = 7 n = 10 Rater 1 0 (0) 8 (53) 4 (31) 2 (29) 0 (0) Rater 2 1 (11) 14 (93) 7 (54) 3 (43) 3 (30) Consensus 0 (0) 9 (60) 3 (23) 2 (29) 0 (0) ↵a Rater 1, S.H.; rater 2, S.S. Missing cases represent unsure raters due to low-quality images.
- Table 4:
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for Lewy body dementia with the abnormal swallow tail sign
Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) PPV (%) NPV (%) Accuracy (%) 1.5 and 3T Rater 1 50 79 36 87 74 Rater 2 95 66 41 98 72 Consensus 63 79 44 89 76 Consensus, 1.5- and 1.6-mm ST 69 91 75 88 84 Consensus, 2-mm ST 50 69 20 90 67 1.5T Rater 1, 1.5T 25 75 9 91 70 Rater 2, 1.5T 80 70 25 97 71 Consensus, 1.5T 60 72 23 93 71 3T Rater 1, 3T 57 84 57 84 76 Rater 2, 3T 100 61 50 100 72 Consensus, 3T 64 86 64 86 80 Note:—PPV indicates positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; ST, section thickness.
LBD, OR (95% CI) FTD, OR (95% CI) AD, OR (95% CI) MCI, OR (95% CI) Rater 1 4 (1–14), P = .010 6 (1–39), P = .060 3 (1–17), P = .248 2 (0–14), P = .668 Rater 2 31 (4–244), P = .001 11 (0–276), P = .236 4 (1–20), P = .070 1 (0–4), P = .831 Consensus 9 (3–28), P <.001 7 (1–50), P = .060 3 (1–19), P = .229 1 (0–10), P = .746 Note:—OR indicates odds ratio.
↵a The regression model is controlled for field strength and section thickness.
