Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40681899›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025

Comparison of two preprocessing methods for

Elif Harput, Debora Elisa Peretti, Max Scheffler, Nicholas J Ashton, Kaj Blennow, Henrik Zetterberg, Ruben Smith, Giovanni B Frisoni, Valentina Garibotto, Cecilia Boccalini

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 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. 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

10 authors.

Elif HarputLaboratory of Neuroimaging and Innovative Molecular Tracers (NIMTlab), Geneva University Neurocentre and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Debora Elisa PerettiLaboratory of Neuroimaging and Innovative Molecular Tracers (NIMTlab), Geneva University Neurocentre and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Max SchefflerDivision of Radiology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nicholas J AshtonDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden.
Kaj BlennowDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden.
Henrik ZetterbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden.
Ruben SmithClinical Memory Research Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Giovanni B FrisoniGeneva Memory Centre, Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, Geneva University Hospitals, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Valentina GaribottoLaboratory of Neuroimaging and Innovative Molecular Tracers (NIMTlab), Geneva University Neurocentre and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Cecilia BoccaliniLaboratory of Neuroimaging and Innovative Molecular Tracers (NIMTlab), Geneva University Neurocentre and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. cecilia.boccalini@unige.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-3518-436X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTau-Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has become central in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and clinical settings. Multiple preprocessing pipelines for tau-PET quantification have been described, with satisfactory performance but direct comparisons remain scarse. Our study evaluates the comparability of two commonly used PET preprocessing methods, respectively in native and standard spaces, in quantifying tau deposition and in their ability to discriminate AD patients.

methods209 subjects were included from the Geneva memory clinic including cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia patients. Images were processed in native and standard space using inferior cerebellar grey matter as reference region. Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) were extracted from AD-specific regions. Correlations between SUVR obtained by different methods and plasma biomarkers were assessed. ROC analyses compared the ability of the two methods to discriminate visually assessed tau status, amyloid-positive cognitively impaired from amyloid-negative CU, and subjects with declining cognition over time.

resultsSUVR from the two methods were strongly correlated across all regions. However, SUVR values obtained with standard space method showed higher values. SUVR in the medial temporal lobe from native space processing provided a greater accuracy in discriminating positive scans and identifying subjects with cognitive decline. For all other analyses methods performed equally well. The correlation with plasma biomarkers was comparably high with both methods.

conclusionWhile preprocessing in native and standard space is adequate for quantifying

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseasePositron-Emission TomographyAgedBiomarkersCarbolinesCerebellumCognitive DysfunctionContrast MediaFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle Agedtau Proteins7-(6-fluoropyridin-3-yl)-5H-pyrido(4,3-b)indoleBiomarkersCarbolinesContrast Mediatau ProteinsAlzheimer’s diseaseReference spaceSemi-quantificationTau-PET

Identifiers

PMID40681899
PMCPMC12660454

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.