ArticleEJNMMI research2020
[
Article in EJNMMI research, 2020. 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, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerebellar cortical amyloid deposition biasesEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- The Dementias Platform UK PET/MR harmonisation and test-retest study: assessment of PET repeatability and reproducibility across the national network.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Prediction of alzheimer's disease time to dementia onset using cross-sectional data from spatiotemporal biomarker progression patterns.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Exploring Centiloid Robustness: Impact of Sample Size and Image Resolution on Centiloid Conversion Accuracy.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
- Concordance between Centiloid Quantification and Visual Interpretation of Amyloid PET Scans across the Alzheimer Disease Continuum.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- 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
- Non-invasive quantification ofEJNMMI research · 2024Article
- Impact of simulated reduced injected dose on the assessment of amyloid PET scans.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Non-invasive quantification ofResearch square · 2023Article
- Comparison of automated quantification of amyloid deposition between PMOD and Heuron.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- NiftyPAD - Novel Python Package for Quantitative Analysis of Dynamic PET Data.Neuroinformatics · 2023Article
- The RSNA QIBA Profile for Amyloid PET as an Imaging Biomarker for Cerebral Amyloid Quantification.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023Article
- Parasagittal dural space hypertrophy and amyloid-β deposition in Alzheimer's disease.Brain communications · 2023Article
- Beta amyloid deposition and cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease: a study of the PPMI cohort.Molecular brain · 2022Article
- Tracer-specific reference tissues selection improves detection ofHuman brain mapping · 2022Article
- Causal links among amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration.Brain communications · 2022Article
- Impact of 40 Hz Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on Cerebral Tau Burden in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease: A Case Series.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022Article
- Test-Retest Variability of Relative Tracer Delivery Rate as Measured by [Molecular imaging and biology · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe standard reference region (RR) for amyloid-beta (Aβ) PET studies is the cerebellar grey matter (GMCB), while alternative RRs have mostly been utilized without prior validation against the gold standard. This study compared five commonly used RRs to gold standard plasma input-based quantification using the GMCB.
methodsThirteen subjects from a test-retest (TRT) study and 30 from a longitudinal study were retrospectively included (total: 17 Alzheimer's disease, 13 mild cognitive impairment, 13 controls). Dynamic [
resultsAll RRs yielded stable TRT performance (max 5.1% variability), with WCB consistently showing lower variability. All approaches were able to discriminate between Aβ positive and Aβ negative scans, with highest effect sizes obtained for GMCB (range - 0.9 to - 0.7), followed by WCB (range - 0.8 to - 0.6). Furthermore, all approaches provided good correlations with the gold standard (r ≥ 0.78), while the highest bias (as assessed by the regression slope) was observed using WMES (range slope 0.52-0.67), followed by WBS (range slope 0.58-0.92) and WMBS (range slope 0.62-0.91). Finally, RR SUVs were stable across a period of 2.6 years for all except WBS and WMBS RRs (60-90 min interval).
conclusionsGMCB and WCB are considered the best RRs for quantifying amyloid burden using [
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.