Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Comparison of subtyping methods for neuroimaging studies in Alzheimer's disease: a call for harmonization
Mohanty R, Mårtensson G, Poulakis K, Muehlboeck JS, Rodriguez-Vieitez E, Chiotis K, Grothe MJ, Nordberg A et al.. Brain communications, 2020-11-09
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Biological subtypes in Alzheimer's disease, originally identified on neuropathological data, have been translated to in vivo biomarkers such as structural magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography, to disentangle the heterogeneity within Alzheimer's disease. Although there is methodological variability across studies, comparable characteristics of subtypes are reported at the group level. In this study, we investigated whether group-level similarities translate to individual-level agreement across subtyping methods, in a head-to-head context. We compared five previously published subtyping methods. Firstly, we validated the subtyping methods in 89 amyloid-beta positive Alzheimer's disease dementia patients (reference group: 70 amyloid-beta negative healthy individuals) using structural magnetic resonance imaging. Secondly, we extended and applied the subtyping methods to 53 amyloid-beta positive prodromal Alzheimer's disease and 30 amyloid-beta positive Alzheimer's disease dementia patients (reference group: 200 amyloid-beta negative healthy individuals) using structural magnetic resonance imaging and tau positron emission tomography. Subtyping methods were implemented as outlined in each original study. Group-level and individual-level comparisons across methods were performed. Each individual subtyping method was replicated, and the proof-of-concept was established. At the group level, all methods captured subtypes with similar patterns of demographic and clinical characteristics, and with similar cortical thinning and tau positron emission tomography uptake patterns. However, at the individual level, large disagreements were found in subtype assignments. Although characteristics of subtypes are comparable at the group level, there is a large disagreement at the individual level across subtyping methods. Therefore, there is an urgent need for consensus and harmonization across subtyping methods. We call for the establishment of an open benchmarking framework to overcome this problem.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mohanty, R., Mårtensson, G., Poulakis, K., Muehlboeck, J. S., Rodriguez-Vieitez, E., Chiotis, K., et al. (2020). Comparison of subtyping methods for neuroimaging studies in Alzheimer's disease: a call for harmonization. Brain communications. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcaa192
Vancouver
Mohanty R, Mårtensson G, Poulakis K, Muehlboeck JS, Rodriguez-Vieitez E, Chiotis K, et al. Comparison of subtyping methods for neuroimaging studies in Alzheimer's disease: a call for harmonization. Brain communications. 2020. doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaa192. PMID: 33305264.
BibTeX
@article{mohanty2020-33305264,
author = {Mohanty, R. and Mårtensson, G. and Poulakis, K. and Muehlboeck, J. S. and Rodriguez-Vieitez, E. and Chiotis, K. and Grothe, M. J. and Nordberg, A. and others},
title = {{Comparison of subtyping methods for neuroimaging studies in Alzheimer's disease: a call for harmonization}},
journal = {Brain communications},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1093/braincomms/fcaa192},
pmid = {33305264},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcaa192}
}
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
- At the group level, all methods captured subtypes with similar patterns of demographic and clinical characteristics, and with similar cortical thinning and tau positron emission tomography uptake patterns.
- However, at the individual level, large disagreements were found in subtype assignments.
- Although characteristics of subtypes are comparable at the group level, there is a large disagreement at the individual level across subtyping methods.
- Therefore, there is an urgent need for consensus and harmonization across subtyping methods.
- We call for the establishment of an open benchmarking framework to overcome this problem.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain communications) |
| 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 | 2020 — 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 33305264) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 “harmonization”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “harmonization”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.