ArticleJournal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany)2025
Agreement between early-phase amyloid-PET and pulsed arterial spin labeling in a memory clinic cohort.
Article in Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF), assessed using pulsed arterial spin labeling (pASL) MRI, and the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) in early-phase amyloid-PET (ePET) are used as proxies for brain perfusion. These methods have the potential to streamline clinical workflows and reduce the burden on patients by eliminating the need for additional procedures. While both techniques have shown good agreement with the gold standard for glucose metabolism assessment, F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET, a direct comparison between them has yet to be fully clarified. This retrospective study aimed to compare perfusion-like data from pASL (rCBF) and ePET (SUVr) in a memory clinic cohort. We included 46 subjects (69 ± 8 years; 37 women) from the Geneva Memory Center (cognitively impaired-CI n = 29; cognitively unimpaired-CU n = 17), with available pASL and ePET. We evaluated the association between rCBF and SUVr values across 18 cortical and subcortical regions using linear regression and the within-subject coefficient of variation (wsCV). Regional differences between CU and CI groups were assessed using linear regression model corrected for age. We observed significant association between rCBF and SUVr in precuneus (β = 0.69, wsCV = 16.9), angular gyrus (β = 0.64, wsCV = 19.4), and hippocampus (β = 0.23, wsCV = 16.1). Additionally, significant differences in rCBF between CU and CI were also observed in the posterior cingulate, precuneus, calcarine, hippocampus, and composite (p < 0.05), while SUVr showed significant differences only in the hippocampus. Our findings indicate weak to moderate local correlations between the two techniques. However, both exhibited differing regional perfusion levels in CU and CI groups, with rCBF showing more regional differences between cognitive stages in comparison with SUVr. KEY MESSAGES: rCBF is assessed through pASL MRI and SUVr through ePET, both serving as proxies of brain perfusion. Weak to moderate associations between rCBF and SUVr were found in a number of brain regions. rCBF and SUVr differences between cognitive stages were observed mostly in cortical and subcortical regions respectively. Both techniques were able to identify AD perfusion-like differences expected in cognitively impaired vs unimpaired.
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.