Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Evaluation of Dosimetry, Quantitative Methods, and Test-Retest Variability of 18F-PI-2620 PET for the Assessment of Tau Deposits in the Human Brain
Bullich S, Barret O, Constantinescu C, Sandiego C, Mueller A, Berndt M, Papin C, Perrotin A et al.. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2019-11-11
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
A strong correlation was found across different kinetic models ( R 2 > 0.97) and between DVR(2TC) and SUVR between 30 and 90 min, with an R 2 of more than 0.95. Secular equilibrium was reached at around 40 min after injection in most regions and subjects. TRV and effect size for SUVR across different regions were similar at 30-60 min (TRV, 3.8%; Cohen's d, 3.80), 45-75 min (TRV, 4.3%; Cohen's d, 3.77) and 60-90 min (TRV, 4.9%; Cohen's d, 3.73) and increased at later time points. Elimination was via the hepatobiliary and urinary systems. The whole-body effective dose was 33.3 ± 2.1 μSv/MBq for an adult female and 33.1 ± 1.4 μSv/MBq for an adult male, with a 1.5-h urinary bladder voiding interval. 18 F-PI-2620 exhibits fast kinetics, suitable dosimetry, and low TRV. DVR measured using the 2TC model with arterial sampling correlated strongly with DVR measured by NI-LGA, MRTM2, and SUVR. SUVR can be used for 18 F-PI-2620 PET quantification of tau deposits, avoiding arterial blood sampling. Static 18 F-PI-2620 PET scans between 45 and 75 min after injection provide excellent quantification accuracy, a large effect size, and low TRV.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bullich, S., Barret, O., Constantinescu, C., Sandiego, C., Mueller, A., Berndt, M., et al. (2020). Evaluation of Dosimetry, Quantitative Methods, and Test-Retest Variability of 18F-PI-2620 PET for the Assessment of Tau Deposits in the Human Brain. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.236240
Vancouver
Bullich S, Barret O, Constantinescu C, Sandiego C, Mueller A, Berndt M, et al. Evaluation of Dosimetry, Quantitative Methods, and Test-Retest Variability of 18F-PI-2620 PET for the Assessment of Tau Deposits in the Human Brain. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2020. doi:10.2967/jnumed.119.236240. PMID: 31712324.
BibTeX
@article{bullich2020-31712324,
author = {Bullich, S. and Barret, O. and Constantinescu, C. and Sandiego, C. and Mueller, A. and Berndt, M. and Papin, C. and Perrotin, A. and others},
title = {{Evaluation of Dosimetry, Quantitative Methods, and Test-Retest Variability of 18F-PI-2620 PET for the Assessment of Tau Deposits in the Human Brain}},
journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.2967/jnumed.119.236240},
pmid = {31712324},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.236240}
}
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
- A strong correlation was found across different kinetic models ( R 2 > 0.97) and between DVR(2TC) and SUVR between 30 and 90 min, with an R 2 of more than 0.95.
- Secular equilibrium was reached at around 40 min after injection in most regions and subjects.
- TRV and effect size for SUVR across different regions were similar at 30-60 min (TRV, 3.8%; Cohen's d, 3.80), 45-75 min (TRV, 4.3%; Cohen's d, 3.77) and 60-90 min (TRV, 4.9%; Cohen's d, 3.73) and increased at later time points.
- Elimination was via the hepatobiliary and urinary systems.
- The whole-body effective dose was 33.3 ± 2.1 μSv/MBq for an adult female and 33.1 ± 1.4 μSv/MBq for an adult male, with a 1.5-h urinary bladder voiding interval. 18 F-PI-2620 exhibits fast kinetics, suitable dosimetry, and low TRV.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Effect size3.8%; 4.3%; 4.9%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| 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 | — / 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 31712324) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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 “evaluation”
7 studies in the library carry the topic tag “evaluation”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 7 tagged studies.