ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Amyloid PET quantification with deep learning segmentation models without MRI.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 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.
- Amyloid-β PET Radioligands in Alzheimer's Disease: From Plaque Detection to Biomarker-Guided Patient Stratification and Therapeutic Monitoring.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate deep learning (DL) segmentation models for accurate, MRI-less amyloid PET quantification through the Centiloid scale.
methodsIn this retrospective study, two DL models (PET/CT and PET-only) were trained using 2774 18F-FBP PET/MRI scan pairs from the ADNI dataset, where synthetic CT were generated from T1w MRI and used as training data. External validation was performed on 424 PET/CT scans from the OASIS-3 dataset. The performance of the DL models was compared to the MRI-based FreeSurfer reference method and the template-based rPOP method. Statistical analyses included the calculation of mean absolute error (MAE), R-squared (R²), equivalence testing, and diagnostic accuracy for amyloid positivity (Centiloid > 20), with a focus on the 0–40 Centiloid ‘gray zone’.
resultsThe PET/CT model demonstrated the highest accuracy, with a MAE of 5.79 Centiloid and a strong correlation (R² = 0.96). The PET-only and rPOP methods showed higher errors with MAEs of 10.8 and 14.45 Centiloid, respectively. The PET/CT model’s Centiloid values were shown to be equivalent to the MRI-derived values within a ± 5 margin, while the PET-only and rPOP methods were not. In the Centiloid gray zone subgroup (n = 93), the PET/CT model yielded the highest diagnostic accuracy of 90.3% and agreement (Cohen’s kappa = 0.79).
conclusionDL models, particularly the PET/CT model trained with synthetic CT, provide accurate and robust Centiloid quantification for 18F-FBP amyloid PET, suggesting their potential as a tool for MRI-less amyloid PET quantification.
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.