Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36408106›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2022

Automated differential diagnosis of dementia syndromes using FDG PET and machine learning.

Matej Perovnik, An Vo, Nha Nguyen, Jan Jamšek, Tomaž Rus, Chris C Tang, Maja Trošt, David Eidelberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. IRMA: Machine learning-based harmonization ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Functional Brain Networks to Evaluate Treatment Responses in Parkinson's Disease.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    Article
  14. Combined 18F-FDG PET-CT markers in dementia with Lewy bodies.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
    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

8 authors.

Matej PerovnikDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
An VoCenter for Neurosciences, The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, New York, NY, United States.
Nha NguyenDepartment of Genetics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Jan JamšekDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Tomaž RusDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Chris C TangCenter for Neurosciences, The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, New York, NY, United States.
Maja TroštDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
David EidelbergCenter for Neurosciences, The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Metabolic brain imaging with 2-[ Methods: We analyzed FDG PET scans from three dementia cohorts [63 dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD), 79 dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and 23 frontotemporal dementia (FTD)], and 41 normal controls (NCs). Patients' clinical diagnosis at follow-up (25 ± 20 months after scanning) or cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease was considered a gold standard. FDG PET scans were first visually evaluated. Scans were pre-processed, and two sets of features extracted: (1) the expressions of previously identified metabolic brain patterns, and (2) the mean uptake value in 95 regions of interest (ROIs). Two multi-class support vector machine (SVM) classifiers were tested and their diagnostic performance assessed and compared to visual reading. Class-specific regional feature importance was assessed with Shapley Additive Explanations. Results: Pattern- and ROI-based classifier achieved higher overall accuracy than expert readers (78% and 80% respectively, vs. 71%). Both SVM classifiers performed similarly to one another and to expert readers in AD (F1 = 0.74, 0.78, and 0.78) and DLB (F1 = 0.81, 0.81, and 0.78). SVM classifiers outperformed expert readers in FTD (F1 = 0.87, 0.83, and 0.63), but not in NC (F1 = 0.71, 0.75, and 0.92). Visualization of the SVM model showed bilateral temporal cortices and cerebellum to be the most important features for AD; occipital cortices, hippocampi and parahippocampi, amygdala, and middle temporal lobes for DLB; bilateral frontal cortices, middle and anterior cingulum for FTD; and bilateral angular gyri, pons, and vermis for NC. Conclusion: Multi-class SVM classifiers based on the expression of characteristic metabolic brain patterns or ROI glucose uptake, performed better than experts in the differential diagnosis of common dementias using FDG PET scans. Experts performed better in the recognition of normal scans and a combined approach may yield optimal results in the clinical setting.

Indexed as

dementiadifferential diagnosisFDG PETmachine learningvisual reading

Identifiers

PMID36408106
PMCPMC9667048

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.