Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Comparison of MR-less PiB SUVR quantification methods
Bourgeat P, Villemagne VL, Dore V, Brown B, Macaulay SL, Martins R, Masters CL, Ames D et al.. Neurobiology of aging, 2014-08-27
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
(11)C-Pittsburgh compound B (PiB) is a positron emission tomography (PET) tracer designed to bind to amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques, one of the hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The potential of PiB as an early marker of AD led to the increasing use of PiB in clinical research studies and development of several F-18-labeled Aβ radiotracers. Automatic quantification of PiB images requires an accurate parcellation of the brain's gray matter (GM). Typically, this relies on a coregistered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to extract the cerebellar GM, compute the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR), and provide parcellation and segmentation for quantification of regional and global SUVR. However, not all subjects can undergo MRI, in which case, an MR-less method is desirable. In this study, we assess 3 PET-only quantification methods: a mean atlas, an adaptive atlas, and a multi-atlas approaches on a database of 237 subjects having been imaged with both PiB PET and MRI. The PET-only methods were compared against MR-based SUVR quantification and evaluated in terms of correlation, average error, and performance in classifying subjects with low and high Aβ deposition. The mean atlas method suffered from a significant bias between the estimated neocortical SUVR and the PiB status, resulting in an overall error of 5.6% (R(2) = 0.98), compared with the adaptive and multi-atlas approaches that had errors of 3.06% and 2.74%, respectively (R(2) = 0.98), and no significant bias. In classifying PiB-negative from PiB-positive subjects, the mean atlas had 10 misclassified subjects compared with 0 for the adaptive and 1 for the multi-atlas approach. Overall, the adaptive and the multi-atlas approaches performed similarly well against the MR-based quantification and would be a suitable replacements for PiB quantification when no MRI is available.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bourgeat, P., Villemagne, V. L., Dore, V., Brown, B., Macaulay, S. L., Martins, R., et al. (2015). Comparison of MR-less PiB SUVR quantification methods. Neurobiology of aging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.04.033
Vancouver
Bourgeat P, Villemagne VL, Dore V, Brown B, Macaulay SL, Martins R, et al. Comparison of MR-less PiB SUVR quantification methods. Neurobiology of aging. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.04.033. PMID: 25257985.
BibTeX
@article{bourgeat2015-25257985,
author = {Bourgeat, P. and Villemagne, V. L. and Dore, V. and Brown, B. and Macaulay, S. L. and Martins, R. and Masters, C. L. and Ames, D. and others},
title = {{Comparison of MR-less PiB SUVR quantification methods}},
journal = {Neurobiology of aging},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.04.033},
pmid = {25257985},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.04.033}
}
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
- The mean atlas method suffered from a significant bias between the estimated neocortical SUVR and the PiB status, resulting in an overall error of 5.6% (R(2) = 0.98), compared with the adaptive and multi-atlas approaches that had errors of 3.06% and 2.74%, respectively (R(2) = 0.98), and no significant bias.
- In classifying PiB-negative from PiB-positive subjects, the mean atlas had 10 misclassified subjects compared with 0 for the adaptive and 1 for the multi-atlas approach.
- Overall, the adaptive and the multi-atlas approaches performed similarly well against the MR-based quantification and would be a suitable replacements for PiB quantification when no MRI is available.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants237
- Effect size5.6%; 3.06%; 2.74%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurobiology of aging) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 237 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 25257985) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 “pib”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “pib”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.