ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2021
Clinical impact of
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Clinical translation of fluid, imaging, and digital biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026Review
- Differential dementia detection from multimodal brain images in a real-world dataset.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- OCT in Oncology and Precision Medicine: From Nanoparticles to Advanced Technologies and AI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Recent developments in translational imaging of in vivo gene therapy outcomes.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2025Review
- Comparison of Plasma p-tau217 and [Neurology · 2025Article
- Plasma phosphorylated tau181 outperforms [European journal of neurology · 2024Article
- The Usefulness ofDementia and neurocognitive disorders · 2024Article
- Divergent neurodegenerative patterns: Comparison of [Brain communications · 2024Article
- Profiling of plasma biomarkers in the context of memory assessment in a tertiary memory clinic.Translational psychiatry · 2023Article
- Head-to-head comparison of plasma and PET imaging ATN markers in subjects with cognitive complaints.Translational neurodegeneration · 2023Article
- Testing for Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Disclosing Results Across the Disease Continuum.Neurology · 2023Article
- Review
- Discordance and Concordance Between Cerebrospinal and [Neurology · 2022Article
- Alzheimer's Dementia: The Emerging Role of Positron Emission Tomography.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2022Review
- Molecular imaging and fluid biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease neuropathology: an opportunity for integrated diagnostics.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Serum Corticosterone and Insulin Resistance as Early Biomarkers in the hAPP23 Overexpressing Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Clinical Impact of PET WithFrontiers in neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the clinical impact and incremental diagnostic value of
methodsThe study population consisted of 277 patients who, despite extensive baseline cognitive assessment, MRI, and CSF analyses, had an uncertain diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 177) or dementia (n = 100). After baseline diagnosis, each patient underwent an FDG-PET, followed by a post-FDG-PET diagnosis formulation. We evaluated (i) the change in diagnosis (baseline vs. post-FDG-PET), (ii) the change in diagnostic accuracy when comparing each baseline and post-FDG-PET diagnosis to a long-term follow-up (3.6 ± 1.8 years) diagnosis used as reference, and (iii) comparative FDG-PET performance testing in MCI and dementia conditions.
resultsFDG-PET led to a change in diagnosis in 86 of 277 (31%) patients, in particular in 57 of 177 (32%) MCI and in 29 of 100 (29%) dementia patients. Diagnostic change was greater than two-fold in the sub-sample of cases with dementia "of unclear etiology" (change in diagnosis in 20 of 32 (63%) patients). In the dementia group, after results of FDG-PET, diagnostic accuracy improved from 77 to 90% in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and from 85 to 94% in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) patients (p < 0.01). FDG-PET performed better in dementia than in MCI (positive likelihood ratios >5 and < 5, respectively).
conclusionWithin a selected clinical population, FDG-PET has a significant clinical impact, both in early and differential diagnosis of uncertain dementia. FDG-PET provides significant incremental value to detect AD and FTLD over a clinical diagnosis of uncertain dementia.
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.