Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Amyloid PET Positivity in Different Primary Progressive Aphasia Phenotypes
Emilie Beaufils, Johnny Vercouillie, Emilie Vierron, Jean-Philippe Cottier, Vincent Camus, Karl Mondon, Denis Guilloteau, Caroline Hommet et al.. Clinical nuclear medicine, 2018-04
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Among the 12 patients with PPA syndrome, 8 (66.7%) were considered as amyloid positive. One of the 3 patients with semantic-variant PPA was F-florbetapir positive. In contrast, 4 of the 5 nonfluent-variant PPA, 2 of the 3 unclassifiable cases and the single patient with LPA were F-florbetapir positive. A significantly higher F-florbetapir uptake was observed in PPA F-florbetapir-positive patients compared with typical AD patients. This difference was observed in all regions of interest, except in posterior cingulate and temporal cortex. These results suggest that F-florbetapir PET may be useful in a routine clinical procedure to improve the reliability of identifying AD pathology in patients with PPA syndrome, with different clinical subtypes of the PPA syndrome.
Key findings
- Among the 12 patients with PPA syndrome, 8 (66.7%) were considered as amyloid positive.
- One of the 3 patients with semantic-variant PPA was F-florbetapir positive.
- In contrast, 4 of the 5 nonfluent-variant PPA, 2 of the 3 unclassifiable cases and the single patient with LPA were F-florbetapir positive.
- A significantly higher F-florbetapir uptake was observed in PPA F-florbetapir-positive patients compared with typical AD patients.
- This difference was observed in all regions of interest, except in posterior cingulate and temporal cortex.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Effect size66.7%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 46/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical nuclear medicine) |
| 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 | 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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 29504965) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 26 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100. |
| Total | 46 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Beaufils, E., Vercouillie, J., Vierron, E., Cottier, J.-P., Camus, V., Mondon, K., et al. (2018). Amyloid PET Positivity in Different Primary Progressive Aphasia Phenotypes. Clinical nuclear medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000002018
Vancouver
Beaufils E, Vercouillie J, Vierron E, Cottier J.-P, Camus V, Mondon K, et al. Amyloid PET Positivity in Different Primary Progressive Aphasia Phenotypes. Clinical nuclear medicine. 2018. doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000002018. PMID: 29504965.
BibTeX
@article{beaufils2018-29504965,
author = {Beaufils, Emilie and Vercouillie, Johnny and Vierron, Emilie and Cottier, Jean-Philippe and Camus, Vincent and Mondon, Karl and Guilloteau, Denis and Hommet, Caroline and others},
title = {{Amyloid PET Positivity in Different Primary Progressive Aphasia Phenotypes}},
journal = {Clinical nuclear medicine},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1097/rlu.0000000000002018},
pmid = {29504965},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000002018}
}
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “18f”
319 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 319 tagged studies.