Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Development and evaluation of an automated quantification tool for amyloid PET images
Yuma Tsubaki, Go Akamatsu, Natsumi Shimokawa, Suguru Katsube, Aya Takashima, Masayuki Sasaki, Japanese Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. EJNMMI physics, 2020-09-29
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Compared with manual step-by-step processing, our developed automated quantification tool reduced processing time by 85%. The SUVRs obtained by the developed quantification tool were consistent with those obtained by manual processing. Compared with the conventional PMOD-based method, the developed quantification tool provided 1.5% lower SUVR values, on average. We determined that this bias is likely due to the difference in anatomical standardization methods. We developed an automated quantification tool for amyloid PET images. Using this tool, SUVR values can be quickly measured without individual MRI and without commercial software. This quantification tool may be useful for clinical studies of AD.
Key findings
- Compared with manual step-by-step processing, our developed automated quantification tool reduced processing time by 85%.
- The SUVRs obtained by the developed quantification tool were consistent with those obtained by manual processing.
- Compared with the conventional PMOD-based method, the developed quantification tool provided 1.5% lower SUVR values, on average.
- We determined that this bias is likely due to the difference in anatomical standardization methods.
- We developed an automated quantification tool for amyloid PET images.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants166
- Effect size1.5%
- Evidence strengthLow
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. 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 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (EJNMMI physics) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 166 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 32990884) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 29 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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 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.
APA 7th
Tsubaki, Y., Akamatsu, G., Shimokawa, N., Katsube, S., Takashima, A., Sasaki, M., et al. (2020). Development and evaluation of an automated quantification tool for amyloid PET images. EJNMMI physics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00329-4
Vancouver
Tsubaki Y, Akamatsu G, Shimokawa N, Katsube S, Takashima A, Sasaki M, et al. Development and evaluation of an automated quantification tool for amyloid PET images. EJNMMI physics. 2020. doi:10.1186/s40658-020-00329-4. PMID: 32990884.
BibTeX
@article{tsubaki2020-32990884,
author = {Tsubaki, Yuma and Akamatsu, Go and Shimokawa, Natsumi and Katsube, Suguru and Takashima, Aya and Sasaki, Masayuki and {Japanese Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Development and evaluation of an automated quantification tool for amyloid PET images}},
journal = {EJNMMI physics},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1186/s40658-020-00329-4},
pmid = {32990884},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00329-4}
}