Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Comparison of 18F-florbetaben quantification results using the standard Centiloid, MR-based, and MR-less CapAIBL® approaches: Validation against histopathology
Vincent Doré, Santiago Bullich, Christopher C Rowe, Pierrick Bourgeat, Salamata Konate, Osama Sabri, Andrew W Stephens, Henryk Barthel et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2019-05-14
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Against combined Bielschowsky silver staining and immunohistochemistry histopathological scores, statistical parametric mapping had 96% sensitivity, 96% specificity, and 95% accuracy, whereas magnetic resonance-less CapAIBL standardized uptake value ratioWhole Cerebellum had 94% sensitivity, 96% specificity, and 95% accuracy. Based on the combined histopathological scores, a CL threshold band of 19 ± 7 CL was determined. Quantification of 18F-florbetaben positron emission tomography scans using magnetic resonance-based and magnetic resonance-less CapAIBL® approaches showed high agreement, establishing a pathology-based threshold in CL.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Doré, V., Bullich, S., Rowe, C. C., Bourgeat, P., Konate, S., Sabri, O., et al. (2019). Comparison of 18F-florbetaben quantification results using the standard Centiloid, MR-based, and MR-less CapAIBL® approaches: Validation against histopathology. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.02.005
Vancouver
Doré V, Bullich S, Rowe CC, Bourgeat P, Konate S, Sabri O, et al. Comparison of 18F-florbetaben quantification results using the standard Centiloid, MR-based, and MR-less CapAIBL® approaches: Validation against histopathology. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.02.005. PMID: 31101517.
BibTeX
@article{dore2019-31101517,
author = {Doré, Vincent and Bullich, Santiago and Rowe, Christopher C and Bourgeat, Pierrick and Konate, Salamata and Sabri, Osama and Stephens, Andrew W and Barthel, Henryk and others},
title = {{Comparison of 18F-florbetaben quantification results using the standard Centiloid, MR-based, and MR-less CapAIBL® approaches: Validation against histopathology}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2019.02.005},
pmid = {31101517},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.02.005}
}
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
- Against combined Bielschowsky silver staining and immunohistochemistry histopathological scores, statistical parametric mapping had 96% sensitivity, 96% specificity, and 95% accuracy, whereas magnetic resonance-less CapAIBL standardized uptake value ratioWhole Cerebellum had 94% sensitivity, 96% specificity, and 95% accuracy.
- Based on the combined histopathological scores, a CL threshold band of 19 ± 7 CL was determined.
- Quantification of 18F-florbetaben positron emission tomography scans using magnetic resonance-based and magnetic resonance-less CapAIBL® approaches showed high agreement, establishing a pathology-based threshold in CL.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 2019 — 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 31101517) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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 “hydrocephalus”
73 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hydrocephalus”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 73 tagged studies.