Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40392338›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany)2025

Agreement between early-phase amyloid-PET and pulsed arterial spin labeling in a memory clinic cohort.

F Ribaldi, A J Mendes, I Boscolo Galazzo, V Natale, G Mathoux, M Pievani, K O Lovblad, M Scheffler, G B Frisoni, V Garibotto and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

11 authors.

F RibaldiGeneva Memory Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. addressfederica.ribaldi@unige.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9208-4472
A J MendesGeneva Memory Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
I Boscolo GalazzoDepartment of Engineering for Innovation Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
V NataleDepartment of Diagnostic and Public Health, Rivoli Hospital, Rivoli (TO), Italy.
G MathouxDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Diagnostic Department, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
M PievaniLaboratory Alzheimer's Neuroimaging & Epidemiology, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni Di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy.
K O LovbladNeurodiagnostic and Neurointerventional Division, Diagnostic Department, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
M SchefflerDivision of Radiology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
G B FrisoniGeneva Memory Center, Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
V GaribottoDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Diagnostic Department, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
F B PizziniRadiology and Department of Engineering forInnovation Medicine, Verona University, Verona, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AmyloidPositron-Emission TomographyAgedAged, 80 and overAlzheimer DiseaseBrainCerebrovascular CirculationCognitive DysfunctionFemaleFluorodeoxyglucose F18HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSpin LabelsAmyloidFluorodeoxyglucose F18Spin LabelsArterial spin labelingCerebral blood flowEarly-phase PETPerfusion

Identifiers

PMID40392338
PMCPMC12287194

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.