This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

52/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

The derived threshold was used to categorize the 172 scans in the test cohort as negative or positive, and results were compared with categorization using visual assessment. Threshold levels were also compared with corresponding thresholds derived from the healthy group. Results Automated quantification (using pons as the reference region) demonstrated 91% sensitivity and 88% specificity and gave 3 false-positive and 4 false-negative scans. Conclusion Categorization of (18)F-flutemetamol amyloid imaging data using an automated PET-only quantification method showed good agreement with histopathologic classification of neuritic plaque density and a strong concordance with visual read results.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Thurfjell, L., Lilja, J., Lundqvist, R., Buckley, C., Smith, A., Vandenberghe, R., et al. (2014). Automated quantification of 18F-flutemetamol PET activity for categorizing scans as negative or positive for brain amyloid: concordance with visual image reads. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.142109

Vancouver

Thurfjell L, Lilja J, Lundqvist R, Buckley C, Smith A, Vandenberghe R, et al. Automated quantification of 18F-flutemetamol PET activity for categorizing scans as negative or positive for brain amyloid: concordance with visual image reads. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2014. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.142109. PMID: 25146124.

BibTeX

@article{thurfjell2014-25146124,
  author  = {Thurfjell, L. and Lilja, J. and Lundqvist, R. and Buckley, C. and Smith, A. and Vandenberghe, R. and Sherwin, P.},
  title   = {{Automated quantification of 18F-flutemetamol PET activity for categorizing scans as negative or positive for brain amyloid: concordance with visual image reads}},
  journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.2967/jnumed.114.142109},
  pmid    = {25146124},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.142109}
}

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

The derived threshold was used to categorize the 172 scans in the test cohort as negative or positive, and results were compared with categorization using visual assessment.
Threshold levels were also compared with corresponding thresholds derived from the healthy group.
Results Automated quantification (using pons as the reference region) demonstrated 91% sensitivity and 88% specificity and gave 3 false-positive and 4 false-negative scans.
Conclusion Categorization of (18)F-flutemetamol amyloid imaging data using an automated PET-only quantification method showed good agreement with histopathologic classification of neuritic plaque density and a strong concordance with visual read results.

Why it matters

An automated, PET-only method sorted 18F-flutemetamol amyloid scans into negative or positive and showed "a strong concordance with visual read results" and "good agreement with histopathologic classification of neuritic plaque density". Using the pons as the reference region, it reached 91% sensitivity and 88% specificity, with 3 false-positive and 4 false-negative scans in a 172-scan test cohort. It is a tool for reading amyloid scans consistently, not a diagnosis of dementia and not a treatment.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →

Study details

Participants68
Effect size97.1% to 99.4%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 52/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

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	2 / 4	Journal of Nuclear Medicine: journal h-index 230 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	1 / 5	2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	68 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	5 / 7	Cited 225 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	16.1 citations a year over 14 year(s) since 2014
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 9.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	3 / 6	Cited by 15 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 49 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Paul F. Sherwin: h-index 22 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	KU Leuven: institution h-index 1,386 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25146124)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	52 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

15 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging

Also tagged “classification”

835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →