Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33028945›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

PET amyloid in normal aging: direct comparison of visual and automatic processing methods.

Sven Haller, Marie-Louise Montandon, Johan Lilja, Cristelle Rodriguez, Valentina Garibotto, François R Herrmann, Panteleimon Giannakopoulos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Quantification of amyloid PET for future clinical use: a state-of-the-art review.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Sven HallerCIRD Centre d'imagerie Rive Droite, Geneva, Switzerland. sven.haller@me.com.
Marie-Louise MontandonDepartment of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Johan LiljaDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Radiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Cristelle RodriguezDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Valentina GaribottoFaculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
François R HerrmannDepartment of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Panteleimon GiannakopoulosDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment of amyloid deposits is a critical step for the identification of Alzheimer disease (AD) signature in asymptomatic elders. Whether the different amyloid processing methods impacts on the quality of clinico-radiological correlations is still unclear. We directly compared in 155 elderly controls with extensive neuropsychological testing at baseline and 4.5 years follow-up three approaches: (i) operator-dependent standard visual reading, (ii) operator-independent automatic SUVR with four different reference regions, and (iii) novel operator and region of reference-independent automatic Aβ-index. The coefficient of variance was used to examine inter-individual variability for each processing method. Using visually-established amyloid positivity as the gold standard, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was computed. Linear regression models were used to assess the association between changes in continuous cognitive score and amyloid uptake values. In SUVR analyses, the coefficient of variance varied from 1.718 to 1.762 according to the area of reference and was of - 3.045 for the Aβ-index method. Compared to the visual rating, Aβ-index method showed the largest area under the ROC curve [0.9568 (95% CI 0.9252, 0.98833)]. The best cut-off score was of - 0.3359 with sensitivity and specificity values of 0.97 and 0.83, respectively. Only the Aß-index was related to more severe decrement of cognitive performances [regression coefficient: 9.103 (95% CI 1.148, 17.058)]. The Aβ-index is considered as preferred option in asymptomatic elders, since it is operator-independent, avoids the selection of reference area, is closer to established visual scoring and correlates with the evolution of cognitive performances.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAgingAlzheimer DiseaseAmyloidAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkersBrainCognitionFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleNeuropsychological TestsPeptide FragmentsPositron-Emission TomographyAmyloidAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkersPeptide Fragments

Identifiers

PMID33028945
PMCPMC7542434

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.