ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Inter-software variability of Centiloid quantification in amyloid PET: A head-to-head comparison of five software platforms.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCentiloid (CL) scaling standardizes amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) quantification across tracers and platforms; however, variability across software implementations may affect diagnostic classification. This study evaluated inter-software variability and diagnostic performance across five platforms using identical
methodsRetrospectively, 192 patients undergoing
resultsAgreement was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.969; 95%CI 0.961-0.975). Some platforms produced systematically higher CL values versus others slightly lower. LoA reached ± 30 CL. Diagnostic accuracy was high (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.949-0.975), with sensitivity 0.923-0.968 and specificity 0.667-0.806. DISCUSSION: Despite excellent agreement, systematic differences persist and may affect classification near thresholds, supporting consistent use of a single processing pipeline.
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.