ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022
Evaluation of semi-quantitative measures of
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative agreement between AMYclz and CortexID forJapanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Association of global gray matter volume and cortical thickness with cognitive function stratified by amyloid PET status.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- The clinical Alzheimer's disease spectrum classified in the A/T/N framework withEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Observational
- Radiomics-enhancedEuropean radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of CortexID and VIZCalc software in brain amyloid PET: a retrospective study of 116 cases.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Establishing cutoff values for visual amyloid positivity in [EJNMMI research · 2025Article
- Screening of [ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2024Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Quantification Methods for Regional Cerebral Amyloid Retention: PET-Only and PET-and-MRI-Based Methods.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalised likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q.Clear without PSF correction in amyloid PET images.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Comparison of automated quantification of amyloid deposition between PMOD and Heuron.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Software compatibility analysis for quantitative measures of [EJNMMI research · 2023Article
- Quantitative comparative analysis of amyloid PET images using three radiopharmaceuticals.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Article
- A comparison of advanced semi-quantitative amyloid PET analysis methods.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Is Amyloid Burden Measured by 18F-Flutemetamol PET Associated with Progression in Clinical Alzheimer's Disease?Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022Observational
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methodsThis observational study included 195 patients with cognitive impairment who underwent
resultsPET images from 191 patients were semi-quantified with SyngoVia and CortexID and 86 PET-magnetic resonance imaging pairs with PMOD. All receiver operating characteristics curves showed a high area under the curve (>0.98). Thresholds for a visually positive PET was for SUVRcer: 1.87 (SyngoVia) and 1.64 (CortexID) and for SUVRpons: 0.54 (SyngoVia) and 0.55 (CortexID). The threshold on the Centiloid scale was 39.6 Centiloids. All semi-quantitative measures showed a very high correlation between different software and normalization methods. Composite SUVRcer was significantly different between SyngoVia and PMOD, SyngoVia and CortexID but not between PMOD and CortexID. Composite SUVRpons were significantly different between all three software. There were significant differences in the mean rank of SUVRpons, SUVRcer, and Centiloid between Alzheimer's disease-group and non-Alzheimer's disease-group.
conclusionsSUVR from different software performed equally well in discriminating visually positive and negative
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.