Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33844055›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2021

A multisite analysis of the concordance between visual image interpretation and quantitative analysis of [

Marco Bucci, Irina Savitcheva, Gill Farrar, Gemma Salvadó, Lyduine Collij, Vincent Doré, Juan Domingo Gispert, Roger Gunn, Bernard Hanseeuw, Oskar Hansson and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Quantitative agreement between AMYclz and CortexID forJapanese journal of radiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparability of Centiloid values from [Neuroimage. Reports · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Comparison of Amyloid-PET Analysis Software UsingDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Cutoff SUVR of [Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

18 authors.

Marco Bucci *Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Center for Alzheimer Research, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. marco.bucci@ki.se.
Irina SavitchevaMedical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Section for Nuclear Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Gill FarrarPharmaceutical Diagnostics, GE Healthcare, Amersham, UK.
Gemma SalvadóBarcelonaβeta Brain Research Center (BBRC), Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
Lyduine CollijDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Vincent DoréAustin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Juan Domingo GispertBarcelonaβeta Brain Research Center (BBRC), Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
Roger GunnInvicro, London, UK.
Bernard HanseeuwNeurology and Nuclear Medicine Departments, Saint-Luc University Hospital, Av. Hippocrate, 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Oskar HanssonClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmo, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Mahnaz ShekariBarcelonaβeta Brain Research Center (BBRC), Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
Renaud LhommelNeurology and Nuclear Medicine Departments, Saint-Luc University Hospital, Av. Hippocrate, 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
José Luis MolinuevoBarcelonaβeta Brain Research Center (BBRC), Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain.
Christopher RoweAustin Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Cyrille SurMerck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
Alex WhittingtonInvicro, London, UK.
Christopher BuckleyPharmaceutical Diagnostics, GE Healthcare, Amersham, UK.
Agneta NordbergDivision of Clinical Geriatrics, Center for Alzheimer Research, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. agneta.k.nordberg@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7345-5151

Funding

Stiftelsen för Strategisk Forskning RB13-0192
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background[

methodsA total of 2770 [

resultsWeighted mean concordance between visual and quantitation using the autopsy-derived threshold was 94% using pons as the reference region. Concordance from a sensitivity analysis which assessed the maximum agreement for each cohort using a range of cut-off values was also estimated at approximately 96% (weighted mean). Agreement was generally higher in clinical cases compared to research cases. V-Q+ discordant cases were 11% more likely to progress to AD than V+Q- for the SUVr with pons as reference region.

conclusionsQuantitation of amyloid PET shows a high agreement vs binary visual reading and also allows for a continuous measure that, in conjunction with possible discordant analysis, could be used in the future to identify possible earlier pathological deposition as well as monitor disease progression and treatment effectiveness.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseasePositron-Emission TomographyAmyloidAmyloid beta-PeptidesAniline CompoundsBenzothiazolesBrainHumansAmyloidAmyloid beta-PeptidesAniline CompoundsBenzothiazolesflutemetamol[18F]flutemetamolAlzheimer’s diseaseAmyloid PETImage interpretationQuantificationVisual inspection

Identifiers

PMID33844055
PMCPMC8175298

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.