Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26973442›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2016

Automated Spatial Brain Normalization and Hindbrain White Matter Reference Tissue Give Improved [(18)F]-Florbetaben PET Quantitation in Alzheimer's Model Mice.

Felix Overhoff, Matthias Brendel, Anna Jaworska, Viktoria Korzhova, Andreas Delker, Federico Probst, Carola Focke, Franz-Josef Gildehaus, Janette Carlsen, Karlheinz Baumann and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Remote Neuroinflammation in Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Correlates with Unfavorable Clinical Outcome.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Journal of neuroinflammation · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Felix OverhoffDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich Munich, Germany.
Matthias BrendelDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich Munich, Germany.
Anna JaworskaDZNE-German Center for Neurodegenerative DiseasesMunich, Germany; Laboratory of Neurodegeneration, International Institute of Molecular and Cell BiologyWarsaw, Poland.
Viktoria KorzhovaDZNE-German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases Munich, Germany.
Andreas DelkerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich Munich, Germany.
Federico ProbstDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich Munich, Germany.
Carola FockeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich Munich, Germany.
Franz-Josef GildehausDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich Munich, Germany.
Janette CarlsenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich Munich, Germany.
Karlheinz BaumannRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Neuroscience Discovery, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd Basel, Switzerland.
Christian HaassDZNE-German Center for Neurodegenerative DiseasesMunich, Germany; Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (SyNergy)Munich, Germany; Biomedical Center, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of MunichMunich, Germany.
Peter BartensteinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of MunichMunich, Germany; Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (SyNergy)Munich, Germany.
Jochen HermsDZNE-German Center for Neurodegenerative DiseasesMunich, Germany; Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (SyNergy)Munich, Germany.
Axel RomingerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of MunichMunich, Germany; Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (SyNergy)Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preclinical PET studies of β-amyloid (Aβ) accumulation are of growing importance, but comparisons between research sites require standardized and optimized methods for quantitation. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate systematically the (1) impact of an automated algorithm for spatial brain normalization, and (2) intensity scaling methods of different reference regions for Aβ-PET in a large dataset of transgenic mice. PS2APP mice in a 6 week longitudinal setting (N = 37) and another set of PS2APP mice at a histologically assessed narrow range of Aβ burden (N = 40) were investigated by [(18)F]-florbetaben PET. Manual spatial normalization by three readers at different training levels was performed prior to application of an automated brain spatial normalization and inter-reader agreement was assessed by Fleiss Kappa (κ). For this method the impact of templates at different pathology stages was investigated. Four different reference regions on brain uptake normalization were used to calculate frontal cortical standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRCTX∕REF), relative to raw SUVCTX. Results were compared on the basis of longitudinal stability (Cohen's d), and in reference to gold standard histopathological quantitation (Pearson's R). Application of an automated brain spatial normalization resulted in nearly perfect agreement (all κ≥0.99) between different readers, with constant or improved correlation with histology. Templates based on inappropriate pathology stage resulted in up to 2.9% systematic bias for SUVRCTX∕REF. All SUVRCTX∕REF methods performed better than SUVCTX both with regard to longitudinal stability (d≥1.21 vs. d = 0.23) and histological gold standard agreement (R≥0.66 vs. R≥0.31). Voxel-wise analysis suggested a physiologically implausible longitudinal decrease by global mean scaling. The hindbrain white matter reference (R mean = 0.75) was slightly superior to the brainstem (R mean = 0.74) and the cerebellum (R mean = 0.73). Automated brain normalization with reference region templates presents an excellent method to avoid the inter-reader variability in preclinical Aβ-PET scans. Intracerebral reference regions lacking Aβ pathology serve for precise longitudinal in vivo quantification of [(18)F]-florbetaben PET. Hindbrain white matter reference performed best when considering the composite of quality criteria.

Indexed as

[18F]-florbetabenAlzheimer's diseasebrain normalizationreference regionsmall animal PETβ-amyloid

Identifiers

PMID26973442
PMCPMC4770021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.