ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2017
Additive value of amyloid-PET in routine cases of clinical dementia work-up after FDG-PET.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Biomarker-Based Classification of Corticobasal Syndrome.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026Article
- Moderating effect of APOE ε4 on the association of sleep disturbance and amyloid-β pathology among cognitively normal older adults.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- Metabolic network alterations as a supportive biomarker in dementia with Lewy bodies with preserved dopamine transmission.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- A Case Report of Early-Onset Alzheimer's Disease UsingDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinical Impact of PET WithFrontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- CCCDTD5: Clinical role of neuroimaging and liquid biomarkers in patients with cognitive impairment.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2020Review
- Amyloid imaging for differential diagnosis of dementia: incremental value compared to clinical diagnosis and [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn recent years, several [
methodsAll subjects were referred in-house with a suspected dementia syndrome due to neurodegenerative disease. After undergoing an FDG-PET exam, the cases were discussed by the interdisciplinary dementia board, where the most likely diagnosis as well as potential differential diagnoses were documented. Because of persistent diagnostic uncertainty, the patients received an additional FBB-PET exam. Results were interpreted visually and classified as amyloid-positive or amyloid-negative, and we then compared the individual clinical diagnoses before and after additional FBB-PET.
resultsA total of 107 patients (mean age 69.4 ± 9.7y) were included in the study. The FBB-PET was rated as amyloid-positive in 65/107. In 83% of the formerly unclear cases, a final diagnosis was reached through FBB-PET, and the most likely prior diagnosis was changed in 28% of cases. The highest impact was observed for distinguishing Alzheimer's dementia (AD) from fronto-temporal dementia (FTLD), where FBB-PET altered the most likely diagnosis in 41% of cases.
conclusionsFBB-PET has a high additive value in establishing a final diagnosis in suspected dementia cases when prior investigations such as FDG-PET are inconclusive. The differentiation between AD and FTLD was particularly facilitated by amyloid-PET, predicting a considerable impact on patient management, especially in the light of upcoming disease-modifying therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.