Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
A Visual Interpretation Algorithm for Assessing Brain Tauopathy with 18F-MK-6240 PET
Seibyl JP, DuBois JM, Racine A, Collins J, Guo Q, Wooten D, Stage E, Cheng D et al.. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2022-09-29
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
For the visual read, the readers assessed 8 gray-matter regions per hemisphere as negative (no abnormal uptake) or positive (1%-25% of the region involved, 25%-75% involvement, or >75% involvement) and then characterized the tau binding pattern as positive or negative for evidence of tau and, if positive, whether brain uptake was in an AD pattern. The readers demonstrated agreement 94% of the time for overall positivity or negativity. Concordance on the determination of regional binary outcomes (negative or positive) showed agreement of 74.3% and a Fleiss κ of 0.912. Using clinical diagnosis as the ground truth, the readers demonstrated a sensitivity of 73%-79% and specificity of 91%-93%, with a combined reader-concordance sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 93%. The average SUV ratio in cortical regions showed a robust correlation with visually derived ratings of regional involvement ( r = 0.73, P < 0.0001). We developed a visual read algorithm for 18 F-MK-6240 PET offering determination of both scan positivity and the regional degree of cortical involvement. These cross-sectional results show strong interreader concordance on both binary and regional assessments of tau deposition, as well as good sensitivity and excellent specificity supporting use as a tool for clinical trials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Seibyl, J. P., DuBois, J. M., Racine, A., Collins, J., Guo, Q., Wooten, D., et al. (2023). A Visual Interpretation Algorithm for Assessing Brain Tauopathy with 18F-MK-6240 PET. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.264371
Vancouver
Seibyl JP, DuBois JM, Racine A, Collins J, Guo Q, Wooten D, et al. A Visual Interpretation Algorithm for Assessing Brain Tauopathy with 18F-MK-6240 PET. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2023. doi:10.2967/jnumed.122.264371. PMID: 36175137.
BibTeX
@article{seibyl2023-36175137,
author = {Seibyl, J. P. and DuBois, J. M. and Racine, A. and Collins, J. and Guo, Q. and Wooten, D. and Stage, E. and Cheng, D. and others},
title = {{A Visual Interpretation Algorithm for Assessing Brain Tauopathy with 18F-MK-6240 PET}},
journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.2967/jnumed.122.264371},
pmid = {36175137},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.264371}
}
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
- For the visual read, the readers assessed 8 gray-matter regions per hemisphere as negative (no abnormal uptake) or positive (1%-25% of the region involved, 25%-75% involvement, or >75% involvement) and then characterized the tau binding pattern as positive or negative for evidence of tau and, if positive, whether brain uptake was in an AD pattern.
- The readers demonstrated agreement 94% of the time for overall positivity or negativity.
- Concordance on the determination of regional binary outcomes (negative or positive) showed agreement of 74.3% and a Fleiss κ of 0.912.
- Using clinical diagnosis as the ground truth, the readers demonstrated a sensitivity of 73%-79% and specificity of 91%-93%, with a combined reader-concordance sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 93%.
- The average SUV ratio in cortical regions showed a robust correlation with visually derived ratings of regional involvement ( r = 0.73, P < 0.0001).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants102
- Effect size74.3%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 62/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 102 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 36175137) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 36 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100. |
| Total | 62 / 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 Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “sup”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “sup”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.