Observational analysis reveals relationships between neuroquant imaging and cognitive scores in different age groups, indicating new insights for clinical practice.
Objective NeuroQuant (NQ) is an automated volumetric MRI software increasingly used in clinical practice to quantify brain structure volumes. While often integrated into the diagnostic process for cognitive disorders, we and others have noted discrepancies in clinical cases between NQ-derived subcortical region percentiles, neuropsychological (NP) test scores, and clinical symptoms. Investigating this with a group of participants instead of individual cases is important to untangle the relationship between NQ and NP test scores. This is because case studies have limited replicability and while NP test scores have well-established reliability and validity, NQ’s reliability and validity is less clear. Method The sample consisted of 124 patients who resided in the DMV (Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia) and underwent comprehensive neuropsychological testing and MRI-based NeuroQuant imaging between 2023 and 2024 at an outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Percentile scores for subcortical structures (hippocampus, thalamus, basal ganglia, etc.) were extracted and compared to standardized NP scores across cognitive indices. Regression and correlation analyses were conducted to assess the strength and direction of associations between NQ percentiles and corresponding cognitive domains between young (≥65) and old (>65) populations. Results Prior studies link hippocampal volume with memory performance, particularly in older adults. Based on this and clinical observations, we anticipate stronger correlations between hippocampal percentiles and memory scores in the older group, with weaker associations in younger individuals. Conclusion Findings will clarify the utility of NQ in interpreting cognitive functioning, particularly across age groups. Results may guide clinicians in the use of volumetric imaging and support a multi-modal approach to diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ande et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: