ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026
Effect of magnetic resonance image-based motion correction on the centiloid scale: a comparison with and without correction.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOwing to cognitive impairment, patients with dementia often struggle to understand the importance of remaining still during imaging procedures, which can lead to motion-related artifacts. To address this issue, magnetic resonance (MR) image-based motion correction (MC) techniques have been developed. However, the impact of MRMC on the quantification of amyloid-β (Aβ) positron emission tomography (PET) using the centiloid (CL) method remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the correlations and differences in the CL values between scans acquired with and without MRMC.
methodsAmong individuals who underwent Aβ PET/MRI at our institution between 2015 and 2024, those who received scans incorporating MRMC (Brain COMPASS, Siemens Healthineers) were selected for analysis. In the MRMC process, a rapid BOLD 3D volume MRI was acquired simultaneously during the 20-min PET scan, enabling deformation estimation and generation of a motion-corrected average PET image. In the conventional protocol, list-mode PET data were divided into four 5-min frames. These frames were then averaged using one of two methods: (1) Rigid MC, in which the second to fourth frames were rigidly registered to the first frame, followed by the averaging of the aligned frames; or (2) Without MC, in which all four frames were averaged without any transformation. CL was analyzed using Amyquant software (version 1.00.0013) and performed on three types of averaged Aβ PET images, namely (1) MRMC, (2) Rigid MC, and (3) Without MC.
resultsCL from the three different MC methods showed a strong linear correlation between MRMC and Rigid MC (R2 = 0.998), between MRMC and Without MC (0.978), and between Rigid MC and Without MC (0.974). Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated that larger CL values were associated with greater differences between the methods. Significantly higher CL values were observed with Rigid MC than with MRMC, Without MC than with MRMC, and Without MC than with Rigid MC. However, these biases were small (1.3, 0.47, −0.78), and CLs were strongly correlated.
conclusionsCL is a semi-quantitative indicator that varies depending on the analytical method, including MC, and is not a fixed value. Caution should be exercised when applying this method in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41591681What 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.