Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
A new Centiloid method for 18F-florbetaben and 18F-flutemetamol PET without conversion to PiB
Soo Hyun Cho, Yeong Sim Choe, Hee Jin Kim, Hyemin Jang, Yeshin Kim, Si Eun Kim, Seung Joo Kim, Jun Pyo Kim et al.. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2019-12-13
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Following the conversion of FBB or FMM SUVRs into CL units, a direct relationship was formed between the FBB or FMM SUVRs and the CL units using dcCL method (FBB dcCL = 151.42 × FBB dcSUVR - 142.24 and FMM dcCL = 148.52 × FMM dcSUVR - 137.09). The FBB and FMM CL units were highly correlated in both our method (R2 = 0.97, FMM dcCL = 0.97 × FBB dcCL + 1.64) and the standard method (R2 = 0.97, FMM CLstandard = 0.79 × FBB CLstandard + 1.36). However, the CL variations between FBB and FMM were smaller when calculated by dcCL method (6.15) than when calculated by the previous method (10.22; P = 0.01). Our findings suggest that our direct comparison of FBB-FMM method, rather than the standard method, is a reasonable way to convert FBB or FMM SUVRs into CL units, at least in environments where FBB or FMM ligands are used frequently.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cho, S. H., Choe, Y. S., Kim, H. J., Jang, H., Kim, Y., Kim, S. E., et al. (2020). A new Centiloid method for 18F-florbetaben and 18F-flutemetamol PET without conversion to PiB. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04596-x
Vancouver
Cho SH, Choe YS, Kim HJ, Jang H, Kim Y, Kim SE, et al. A new Centiloid method for 18F-florbetaben and 18F-flutemetamol PET without conversion to PiB. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2020. doi:10.1007/s00259-019-04596-x. PMID: 31834446.
BibTeX
@article{cho2020-31834446,
author = {Cho, Soo Hyun and Choe, Yeong Sim and Kim, Hee Jin and Jang, Hyemin and Kim, Yeshin and Kim, Si Eun and Kim, Seung Joo and Kim, Jun Pyo and others},
title = {{A new Centiloid method for 18F-florbetaben and 18F-flutemetamol PET without conversion to PiB}},
journal = {European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1007/s00259-019-04596-x},
pmid = {31834446},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04596-x}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Following the conversion of FBB or FMM SUVRs into CL units, a direct relationship was formed between the FBB or FMM SUVRs and the CL units using dcCL method (FBB dcCL = 151.42 × FBB dcSUVR - 142.24 and FMM dcCL = 148.52 × FMM dcSUVR - 137.09).
- The FBB and FMM CL units were highly correlated in both our method (R2 = 0.97, FMM dcCL = 0.97 × FBB dcCL + 1.64) and the standard method (R2 = 0.97, FMM CLstandard = 0.79 × FBB CLstandard + 1.36).
- However, the CL variations between FBB and FMM were smaller when calculated by dcCL method (6.15) than when calculated by the previous method (10.22; P = 0.01).
- Our findings suggest that our direct comparison of FBB-FMM method, rather than the standard method, is a reasonable way to convert FBB or FMM SUVRs into CL units, at least in environments where FBB or FMM ligands are used frequently.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31834446) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “18f”
318 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 318 tagged studies.