Table 5.
Linear regression analyses of WMH shape parameters as dependent variables and lacunes on MRI as independent variable.
| Solidity periventricular or confluent WMHs (Z-score)a |
Convexity periventricular or confluent WMHs (Z-score)a |
Concavity index periventricular or confluent WMHs (Z-score)a |
Fractal dimension periventricular or confluent WMHs (Z-score)a |
Eccentricity deep WMHs (Z-score)a |
Fractal dimension deep WMHs (Z-score)a |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WMH subtype groupsb | B (95% CI)c | B (95% CI)c | B (95% CI)c | B (95% CI)c | B (95% CI)c | B (95% CI)c | ||
| Patients with a periventricular WMH | Lacunes vs. no lacunes | Model 1 | −0.25 (−0.47 to −0.02)* | 0.17 (−0.09 to 0.44) | −0.03 (−0.19 to 0.14) | 0.18 (0.01 to 0.36)* | −0.22 (−0.52 to 0.07) | −0.06 (-0.36 to 0.25) |
| subtype with deep WMHs (n = 424) | Model 2 | −0.04 (−0.20 to 0.11) | 0.01 (−0.22 to 0.24) | −0.01 (−0.17 to 0.16) | −0.01 (−0.09 to 0.08) | −0.19 (−0.49 to 0.11) | −0.09 (−0.40 to 0.21) | |
| Patients with a periventricular WMH | Lacunes vs. no lacunes | Model 1 | −0.48 (−0.83 to −0.13)* | 0.35 (−0.06 to 0.75) | −0.15 (−0.44 to 0.13) | 0.32 (−0.02 to 0.65) | NA | NA |
| subtype without deep WMHs (n=360) | Model 2 | −0.20 (−0.44 to 0.05) | 0.09 (−0.24 to 0.42) | −0.03 (−0.30 to 0.26) | −0.01 (−0.18 to 0.17) | NA | NA | |
| Patients with a confluent WMH subtype (n=215) | Lacunes vs. no lacunes | Model 1 | −0.11 (−0.26 to 0.04) | −0.46 (−0.74 to −0.19)* | 0.65 (0.33 to 0.97)* | 0.28 (0.09 to 0.47)* | −0.02 (−0.20 to 0.16) | −0.05 (−0.23 to 0.12) |
| Model 2 | 0.02 (−0.10 to 0.13) | −0.29 (−0.55 to −0.04)* | 0.30 (0.10 to 0.50)* | 0.04 (−0.05 to 0.13) | −0.03 (−0.21 to 0.16) | −0.03 (−0.20 to 0.15) |
WMH: white matter hyperintensity; ICV: intracranial volume; NA: not applicable; CI: confidence interval.
In periventricular or confluent WMH, a lower convexity, and a higher solidity, concavity index or fractal dimension corresponds to a more complex lesion. In deep WMH, a higher eccentricity corresponds to a more round lesion, while a lower eccentricity corresponds to a more elongated lesion. A higher fractal dimension of a deep lesion corresponds to a more complex lesion.
Linear regression analyses were performed separately in each WMH subtype group.
B represents difference in WMH shape parameter for patients with lacunes versus those without lacunes.
Model 1: Adjusted for age and sex. Model 2: Additionally adjusted for natural log-transformed total WMH volume (% ICV).
p < 0.05.