Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39062892›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2024

A Comparative Analysis of Two Automated Quantification Methods for Regional Cerebral Amyloid Retention: PET-Only and PET-and-MRI-Based Methods.

Sunghwan Kim, Sheng-Min Wang, Dong Woo Kang, Yoo Hyun Um, Eun Ji Han, Sonya Youngju Park, Seunggyun Ha, Yeong Sim Choe, Hye Weon Kim, Regina Ey Kim and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Cutoff SUVR of [Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

13 authors.

Sunghwan KimDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6455-4369
Sheng-Min WangDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea.
Dong Woo KangDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3289-075X
Yoo Hyun UmDepartment of Psychiatry, St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3403-4140
Eun Ji HanDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9041-9977
Sonya Youngju ParkDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea.
Seunggyun HaDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea.
Yeong Sim ChoeResearch Institute, Neurophet Inc., Seoul 06234, Republic of Korea.
Hye Weon KimResearch Institute, Neurophet Inc., Seoul 06234, Republic of Korea.
Regina Ey KimResearch Institute, Neurophet Inc., Seoul 06234, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2578-0069
Donghyeon KimResearch Institute, Neurophet Inc., Seoul 06234, Republic of Korea.
Chang Uk LeeDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea.
Hyun Kook LimDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8742-3409

Funding

Korea Creative Content Agency R2022020030The Catholic University of Korea Basic Medical Science Facilitation Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate quantification of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) is essential for early detection of and intervention in Alzheimer's disease (AD) but there is still a lack of studies comparing the performance of various automated methods. This study compared the PET-only method and PET-and-MRI-based method with a pre-trained deep learning segmentation model. A large sample of 1180 participants in the Catholic Aging Brain Imaging (CABI) database was analyzed to calculate the regional standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) using both methods. The logistic regression models were employed to assess the discriminability of amyloid-positive and negative groups through 10-fold cross-validation and area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) metrics. The two methods showed a high correlation in calculating SUVRs but the PET-MRI method, incorporating MRI data for anatomical accuracy, demonstrated superior performance in predicting amyloid-positivity. The parietal, frontal, and cingulate importantly contributed to the prediction. The PET-MRI method with a pre-trained deep learning model approach provides an efficient and precise method for earlier diagnosis and intervention in the AD continuum.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseBrainMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyAgedAged, 80 and overAmyloidDeep LearningFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedROC CurveAmyloidAlzheimer’s diseaseamyloid retentionautomated quantificationPET-and-MRI-based method

Identifiers

PMID39062892
PMCPMC11276670

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.