Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33667281›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Amyloid burden quantification depends on PET and MR image processing methodology.

Guilherme D Kolinger, David Vállez García, Antoon T M Willemsen, Fransje E Reesink, Bauke M de Jong, Rudi A J O Dierckx, Peter P De Deyn, Ronald Boellaard

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Comparison of two preprocessing methods forEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Quantification of amyloid PET for future clinical use: a state-of-the-art review.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

8 authors.

Guilherme D KolingerMedical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9505-4869
David Vállez GarcíaMedical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3308-3167
Antoon T M WillemsenMedical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Fransje E ReesinkDepartment of Neurology, Alzheimer Research Centre, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bauke M de JongDepartment of Neurology, Alzheimer Research Centre, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Rudi A J O DierckxMedical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Peter P De DeynDepartment of Neurology, Alzheimer Research Centre, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ronald BoellaardMedical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantification of amyloid load with positron emission tomography can be useful to assess Alzheimer's Disease in-vivo. However, quantification can be affected by the image processing methodology applied. This study's goal was to address how amyloid quantification is influenced by different semi-automatic image processing pipelines. Images were analysed in their Native Space and Standard Space; non-rigid spatial transformation methods based on maximum a posteriori approaches and tissue probability maps (TPM) for regularisation were explored. Furthermore, grey matter tissue segmentations were defined before and after spatial normalisation, and also using a population-based template. Five quantification metrics were analysed: two intensity-based, two volumetric-based, and one multi-parametric feature. Intensity-related metrics were not substantially affected by spatial normalisation and did not significantly depend on the grey matter segmentation method, with an impact similar to that expected from test-retest studies (≤10%). Yet, volumetric and multi-parametric features were sensitive to the image processing methodology, with an overall variability up to 45%. Therefore, the analysis should be carried out in Native Space avoiding non-rigid spatial transformations. For analyses in Standard Space, spatial normalisation regularised by TPM is preferred. Volumetric-based measurements should be done in Native Space, while intensity-based metrics are more robust against differences in image processing pipelines.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyAgedAmyloidFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAmyloid

Identifiers

PMID33667281
PMCPMC7935288

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.