ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2025
Interrater agreement and variability in visual reading of [18F] flutemetamol PET images.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic value of Amyloid PET in Real-World Amnestic MCI: Influence of reader experience and interpretation method.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Stage-specific regional distribution of amyloid and tau deposition across the Alzheimer's disease continuum revealed by tau-to-amyloid ratio imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Impact of adjunctive quantitative analysis on visual interpretation of amyloid PET: a multiple tracer, multicentre study.European radiology · 2026Article
- MR-Guided PET Denoising and Resolution Enhancement Improves Visual Interpretation and Preserves Quantitative Behavior Across Amyloid Tracers.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- A new amyloid PET evaluation method using separated gray-matter histogram based on three-component model.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of MRI-, CT- and PET-based anatomical standardization for Centiloid scale calculation in [Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Concordance between Centiloid Quantification and Visual Interpretation of Amyloid PET Scans across the Alzheimer Disease Continuum.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of Amyloid-PET Analysis Software UsingDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to validate the concordance of visual ratings of [18F] flutemetamol amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) images and to investigate the correlation between the agreement of each rater and the Centiloid (CL) scale.
methodsA total of 192 participants, clinically classified as cognitively normal (CN) (n = 59), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 65), Alzheimer's disease (AD) (n = 55), or non-AD dementia (n = 13), participated in this study. Three experts conducted visual ratings of the amyloid PET images for all 192 patients, assigning a confidence level to each rating on a three-point scale (certain, probable, or neither). The positive or negative determination of amyloid PET results was made by majority vote. The CL value was calculated using the CapAIBL pipeline.
resultsOverall, 101 images were determined to be positive, and 91 images were negative. Of the 101 positive images, the three raters were in complete agreement for 92 images and in disagreement for 9 images. Of the 91 negative images, the three raters were in complete agreement for 75 images and in disagreement for 16 images. Interrater reliability among the three experts was particularly high, with both Fleiss' kappa and Conger's kappa measuring 0.83 (0.76-0.89). The CL values of the unanimous positive group were significantly greater than those of the other groups, whereas the CL values of the unanimous negative group were significantly lower than those of the other groups. Images with rater disagreement had intermediate CLs. In cases with a high confidence level, the positive or negative visual ratings were in almost complete agreement. However, as confidence levels decreased, experts' visual ratings became more variable. The lower the confidence level was, the greater the number of cases with disagreement in the visual ratings.
conclusionThree experts independently rated 192 amyloid PET images, achieving a high level of interrater agreement. However, in patients with intermediate amyloid accumulation, visual ratings varied. Therefore, determining positive and negative decisions in these patients should be performed with caution.
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.