ArticleEJNMMI research2019
Impact of the cerebrospinal fluid-mask algorithm on the diagnostic performance of
Article in EJNMMI research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative evaluation of striatal uptake ratios using an adaptive template registration method forAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- Effect of cerebrospinal fluid area mask correction onBMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- A Novel Automatic Approach for Calculation of the Specific Binding Ratio in [I-123]FP-CIT SPECT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-mask algorithm has been developed to reduce the adverse influence of CSF-low-counts on the diagnostic utility of the specific binding ratio (SBR) index calculated with Southampton method. We assessed the effect of the CSF-mask algorithm on the diagnostic performance of the SBR index for parkinsonian syndromes (PS), including Parkinson's disease, and the influence of cerebral ventricle dilatation on the CSF-mask algorithm.
methodsWe enrolled 163 and 158 patients with and without PS, respectively. Both the conventional SBR (non-CSF-mask) and SBR corrected with the CSF-mask algorithm (CSF-mask) were calculated from
resultsROC analyses demonstrated that the CSF-mask algorithm performed better than the non-CSF-mask (no correction, area under the curve [AUC] = 0.917 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.887-0.947] vs. 0.895 [95% CI 0.861-0.929], p < 0.001; attenuation correction, AUC = 0.930 [95% CI 0.902-0.957] vs. 0.903 [95% CI 0.870-0.936], p < 0.001). When not corrected for attenuation, no significant difference in the AUC was observed in the low EI group between the non-CSF-mask and CSF-mask algorithms (0.927 [95% CI 0.877-0.978] vs. 0.942 [95% CI 0.898-0.986], p = 0.11); in the middle and high EI groups, the CSF-mask algorithm performed better than the non-CSF-mask algorithm (middle EI group, AUC = 0.894 [95% CI 0.825-0.963] vs. 0.872 [95% CI 0.798-0.947], p < 0.05; high EI group, AUC = 0.931 [95% CI 0.883-0.978] vs. 0.900 [95% CI 0.840-0.961], p < 0.01). When corrected for attenuation, significant differences in the AUC were observed in all three EI groups (low EI group, AUC = 0.961 [95% CI 0.924-0.998] vs. 0.942 [95% CI 0.895-0.988], p < 0.05; middle EI group, AUC = 0.905 [95% CI 0.843-0.968] vs. 0.872 [95% CI 0.800-0.944], p < 0.005; high EI group, AUC = 0.954 [95% CI 0.917-0.991] vs. 0.917 [95% CI 0.862-0.973], p < 0.005).
conclusionThe CSF-mask algorithm improved the performance of the SBR index in informing the diagnosis of PS, especially in cases with ventricle dilatation.
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.