Prediction of individual clinical outcome in MCI by means of genetic assessment and (18)F-FDG PET
Drzezga A, Grimmer T, Riemenschneider M, Lautenschlager N, Siebner H, Alexopoulus P, Minoshima S, Schwaiger M et al.. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2005-10-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Unlabelled Patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) represent a risk population for progressing to dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT). However, clinical criteria do not ensure reliable individual prognosis in these patients. The objective of this longitudinal, prospective study was to examine the value of (18)F-FDG PET of cerebral glucose metabolism and of genetic susceptibility, as defined by an APOEepsilon4-positive genotype, with regard to the early diagnosis of DAT in patients with MCI. Methods In 30 patients with the diagnosis of MCI (16 female, 14 male; age, 70 +/- 8 y), baseline and follow-up examinations (mean observation period, 16 mo) were performed. In all patients, the APOE genotype was assessed and cerebral glucose metabolism was evaluated at baseline using cranial (18)F-FDG PET. Individual PET data were screened for findings suggestive of Alzheimer's disease (AD), with the help of an automated computer program. After stereotactical normalization of the PET images, this program performs an observer-independent statistical comparison with an age-matched reference database (n = 22). Results In 43% of all MCI subjects, a PET scan suggestive of AD pathology according to our predefined criteria was observed at baseline (PET+); 57% of all MCI patients were carriers of the APOE epsilon4 allele (e4+). In 40% of all patients, progression of symptoms within the observation period justified the clinical diagnosis of probable DAT at the time of follow-up reevaluation. Statistical evaluation revealed the best results for PET with regard to early diagnosis of DAT in MCI patients (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 89%). Classification according to the APOE genotype was significantly less successful (sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 56%). However, a combination of both diagnostic tests allowed early diagnosis with either very high specificity (PET+ AND e4+: sensitivity, 67%; specificity, 100%) or very high sensitivity (PET+ OR e4+: sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 44%). Conclusion (18)F-FDG PET of cerebral glucose metabolism is a valuable diagnostic tool for the prediction of clinical outcome in individual MCI patients. Results are superior to the exclusive assessment of the APOE genotype. A combination of both functional imaging and genotyping may allow an early high-risk or low-risk stratification of patients with either very high sensitivity or very high specificity. This may be valuable, for example, for patient selection in scientific studies.
Key findings
- Results In 43% of all MCI subjects, a PET scan suggestive of AD pathology according to our predefined criteria was observed at baseline (PET+); 57% of all MCI patients were carriers of the APOE epsilon4 allele (e4+).
- Statistical evaluation revealed the best results for PET with regard to early diagnosis of DAT in MCI patients (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 89%).
- Classification according to the APOE genotype was significantly less successful (sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 56%).
- Results are superior to the exclusive assessment of the APOE genotype.
Why it matters
In people with mild cognitive impairment, a PET scan suggesting Alzheimer's patterns predicted progression to dementia better than APOE genotype alone. This is about improving individual prognosis, not about treating, curing or preventing the disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants22
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, so that was left out: it earned 51 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 53 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 | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2005 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 22 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 | 5 / 7 | Cited 282 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 3 / 5 | 12.3 citations a year over 23 year(s) since 2005 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 11.4× 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 11 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Alexander Kurz: h-index 65 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Technical University of Munich: institution h-index 1,092 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 16204712) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 51 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 51 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 10 Oct 2026), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. 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.
APA 7th
Drzezga, A., Grimmer, T., Riemenschneider, M., Lautenschlager, N., Siebner, H., Alexopoulus, P., et al. (2005). Prediction of individual clinical outcome in MCI by means of genetic assessment and (18)F-FDG PET. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
Vancouver
Drzezga A, Grimmer T, Riemenschneider M, Lautenschlager N, Siebner H, Alexopoulus P, et al. Prediction of individual clinical outcome in MCI by means of genetic assessment and (18)F-FDG PET. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2005. PMID: 16204712.
BibTeX
@article{drzezga2005-16204712,
author = {Drzezga, A. and Grimmer, T. and Riemenschneider, M. and Lautenschlager, N. and Siebner, H. and Alexopoulus, P. and Minoshima, S. and Schwaiger, M. and others},
title = {{Prediction of individual clinical outcome in MCI by means of genetic assessment and (18)F-FDG PET}},
journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine},
year = {2005},
pmid = {16204712}
}
Related studies in Genetics
Also in Genetics
173 studies in the library are filed under Genetics with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Genetics hub.