This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

45/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Background Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) is only 70% accurate. Reduced cerebral blood flow (CBF) and metabolism in parieto-temporal and posterior cingulate cortex may assist diagnosis. While widely accepted that 18 F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography ( 18 F-FDG PET) has superior accuracy to CBF-SPECT for AD, there are very limited head-to-head data from clinically relevant populations and these studies relied on clinical diagnosis as the reference standard. Aims To compare directly the accuracy of CBF-SPECT and 18 F-FDG PET in patients referred for diagnostic studies in detecting β-amyloid PET confirmed AD. Methods A total of 126 patients, 56% with mild cognitive impairment and 44% with dementia, completed both CBF-SPECT and 18 F-FDG PET as part of their diagnostic assessment, and subsequently underwent β-amyloid PET for research purposes. Transaxial slices and Neurostat 3D-SSP analyses of 18 F-FDG PET and CBF-SPECT scans were independently reviewed by five nuclear medicine clinicians blinded to all other data. Operators selected the most likely diagnosis and their diagnostic confidence. Accuracy analysis used final diagnosis incorporating β-amyloid PET as the reference standard. Results Clinicians reported high diagnostic confidence in 83% of 18 F-FDG PET compared to 67% for CBF-SPECT (P = 0.001). All reviewers showed individually higher accuracy using 18 F-FDG PET. Based on majority read, the combined area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnosing AD was 0.71 for 18 F-FDG PET and 0.61 for CBF-SPECT (P = 0.02). The sensitivity of 18 F-FDG PET and CBF-SPECT was 76% versus 43% (P Conclusions 18 F-FDG PET is superior to CBF-SPECT in detecting AD among patients referred for the assessment of cognitive impairment.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Nadebaum, D. P., Krishnadas, N., Poon, A. M. T., Kalff, V., Lichtenstein, M., Villemagne, V. L., et al. (2021). Head-to-head comparison of cerebral blood flow single-photon emission computed tomography and 18 F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. Internal medicine journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14890

Vancouver

Nadebaum DP, Krishnadas N, Poon AMT, Kalff V, Lichtenstein M, Villemagne VL, et al. Head-to-head comparison of cerebral blood flow single-photon emission computed tomography and 18 F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. Internal medicine journal. 2021. doi:10.1111/imj.14890. PMID: 32388925.

BibTeX

@article{nadebaum2021-32388925,
  author  = {Nadebaum, D. P. and Krishnadas, N. and Poon, A. M. T. and Kalff, V. and Lichtenstein, M. and Villemagne, V. L. and Jones, G. and Rowe, C. C.},
  title   = {{Head-to-head comparison of cerebral blood flow single-photon emission computed tomography and 18 F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease}},
  journal = {Internal medicine journal},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1111/imj.14890},
  pmid    = {32388925},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14890}
}

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 8 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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 126 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Clinicians reported high diagnostic confidence in 83% of 18 F-FDG PET compared to 67% for CBF-SPECT (P = 0.001).
The sensitivity of 18 F-FDG PET and CBF-SPECT was 76% versus 43% (P Conclusions 18 F-FDG PET is superior to CBF-SPECT in detecting AD among patients referred for the assessment of cognitive impairment.

Why it matters

In patients referred for cognitive impairment assessment, 18F-FDG PET was better than CBF-SPECT at detecting Alzheimer's disease confirmed by amyloid PET. This is about improving diagnosis, not about treating, curing or preventing the disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Participants126
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 45/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and effect reported because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Internal medicine journal)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	Internal Medicine Journal: journal h-index 99 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	3 / 5	2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	126 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)
Randomized / blinded	1 / 2	Blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record)
Times cited	2 / 7	Cited 13 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	1.9 citations a year over 7 year(s) since 2021
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 1.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 4 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	4 / 4	Last-listed author Christopher Cleon Rowe: h-index 100 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	The University of Melbourne: institution h-index 1,342 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32388925)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	45 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 13.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “machine”

834 studies in the library carry the topic tag “machine”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 834 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →