Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Florbetaben amyloid PET acquisition time: Influence on Centiloids and interpretation
Emily Johns, Hillary A Vossler, Christina B Young, Mackenzie L Carlson, Joseph R Winer, Kyan Younes, Jennifer Park, Julia Rathmann-Bloch et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2024-07-04
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
CL values increased significantly over the scan using the whole cerebellum, cerebellar gray matter, and brainstem as reference regions, particularly in amyloid-positive individuals. In contrast, CLs based on white matter-containing reference regions decreased across the scan. The quantification of CLs in FBB PET imaging is influenced by both the overall scan acquisition time and the choice of reference region. Standardized acquisition protocols or the application of acquisition time-specific CL equations should be implemented in clinical protocols. HIGHLIGHTS: Acquisition timing affects florbetaben positron emission tomography (PET) scan quantification, especially in amyloid-positive participants. The impact of acquisition timing on quantification varies across common reference regions. Consistent acquisitions and/or appropriate post-injection adjustments are needed to ensure comparability of PET data.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Johns, E., Vossler, H. A., Young, C. B., Carlson, M. L., Winer, J. R., Younes, K., et al. (2024). Florbetaben amyloid PET acquisition time: Influence on Centiloids and interpretation. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13893
Vancouver
Johns E, Vossler HA, Young CB, Carlson ML, Winer JR, Younes K, et al. Florbetaben amyloid PET acquisition time: Influence on Centiloids and interpretation. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2024. doi:10.1002/alz.13893. PMID: 38962867.
BibTeX
@article{johns2024-38962867,
author = {Johns, Emily and Vossler, Hillary A and Young, Christina B and Carlson, Mackenzie L and Winer, Joseph R and Younes, Kyan and Park, Jennifer and Rathmann-Bloch, Julia and others},
title = {{Florbetaben amyloid PET acquisition time: Influence on Centiloids and interpretation}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1002/alz.13893},
pmid = {38962867},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13893}
}
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
- CL values increased significantly over the scan using the whole cerebellum, cerebellar gray matter, and brainstem as reference regions, particularly in amyloid-positive individuals.
- In contrast, CLs based on white matter-containing reference regions decreased across the scan.
- The quantification of CLs in FBB PET imaging is influenced by both the overall scan acquisition time and the choice of reference region.
- Standardized acquisition protocols or the application of acquisition time-specific CL equations should be implemented in clinical protocols.
- HIGHLIGHTS: Acquisition timing affects florbetaben positron emission tomography (PET) scan quantification, especially in amyloid-positive participants.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants245
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 55 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 245 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 38962867) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 31 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “18f”
318 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 318 tagged studies.