ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Visual interpretation of [
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. 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.
- From clinical phenotypes to molecular stratification: early differential diagnosis of four-repeat tauopathies.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTau accumulation in the brain is a hallmark of both Alzheimer's disease (AD) and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), complicating differential diagnosis. The novel [
methodsEightynine participants of Aβpositive AD, Aβnegative PSP, and cognitively unimpaired controls (CU) underwent [
resultsThe study found significant differences in visual scores between the CU, AD, and PSP groups, particularly in the AD-specific and PSP-specific regions. Visual assessment of tau uptake moderately correlated with SUVr values, especially in AD-specific regions. The decision tree model using visual scores accurately classified CU, AD, and PSP patients, with sensitivity and specificity rates exceeding 85%. Interobserver agreement for visual scoring was high, supporting the reliability of this method in clinical settings.
conclusionVisual interpretation scoring system of [
Indexed as
Identifiers
41032076What 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.