ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Quantitative agreement between AMYclz and CortexID for
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeQuantitative analysis of amyloid PET images is increasingly used to support visual interpretation and to provide objective measures of amyloid burden. However, quantitative values may vary depending on the analysis software used. This study aimed to evaluate the quantitative agreement between two analysis platforms, AMYclz and CortexID, for MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 103 consecutive patients who underwent
resultsAmong 103 patients, 59 were visually classified as amyloid-positive and 44 as amyloid-negative. CortexID SUVr values were significantly higher in amyloid-positive patients than in amyloid-negative patients (1.30 ± 0.14 vs. 0.97 ± 0.09, p < 0.001). AMYclz SUVr showed similar separation between groups (1.34 ± 0.14 vs. 0.99 ± 0.09, p < 0.001). ROC analysis demonstrated excellent discrimination for CortexID SUVr (AUC = 0.986), AMYclz SUVr (AUC = 0.996), and CL values (AUC = 0.996). CortexID and AMYclz SUVr values showed strong correlation (r = 0.957) with minimal systematic bias. Discordant classification between the two software platforms was observed in three cases (2.9%), all near the diagnostic threshold.
conclusionAMYclz and CortexID demonstrated excellent quantitative agreement for
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.