Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Selecting software pipelines for change in flortaucipir SUVR: Balancing repeatability and group separation
Schwarz CG, Therneau TM, Weigand SD, Gunter JL, Lowe VJ, Przybelski SA, Senjem ML, Botha H et al.. NeuroImage, 2021-06-09
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Since tau PET tracers were introduced, investigators have quantified them using a wide variety of automated methods. As longitudinal cohort studies acquire second and third time points of serial within-person tau PET data, determining the best pipeline to measure change has become crucial. We compared a total of 415 different quantification methods (each a combination of multiple options) according to their effects on a) differences in annual SUVR change between clinical groups, and b) longitudinal measurement repeatability as measured by the error term from a linear mixed-effects model. Our comparisons used MRI and Flortaucipir scans of 97 Mayo Clinic study participants who clinically either: a) were cognitively unimpaired, or b) had cognitive impairments that were consistent with Alzheimer's disease pathology. Tested methods included cross-sectional and longitudinal variants of two overarching pipelines (FreeSurfer 6.0, and an in-house pipeline based on SPM12), three choices of target region (entorhinal, inferior temporal, and a temporal lobe meta-ROI), five types of partial volume correction (PVC) (none, two-compartment, three-compartment, geometric transfer matrix (GTM), and a tau-specific GTM variant), seven choices of reference region (cerebellar crus, cerebellar gray matter, whole cerebellum, pons, supratentorial white matter, eroded supratentorial WM, and a composite of eroded supratentorial WM, pons, and whole cerebellum), two choices of region masking (GM or GM and WM), and two choices of statistic (voxel-wise mean vs. median). Our strongest findings were: 1) larger temporal-lobe target regions greatly outperformed entorhinal cortex (median sample size estimates based on a hypothetical clinical trial were 520-526 vs. 1740); 2) longitudinal processing pipelines outperformed cross-sectional pipelines (median sample size estimates were 483 vs. 572); and 3) reference regions including supratentorial WM outperformed traditional cerebellar and pontine options (median sample size estimates were 370 vs. 559). Altogether, our results favored longitudinally SUVR methods and a temporal-lobe meta-ROI that includes adjacent (juxtacortical) WM, a composite reference region (eroded supratentorial WM + pons + whole cerebellum), 2-class voxel-based PVC, and median statistics.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Schwarz, C. G., Therneau, T. M., Weigand, S. D., Gunter, J. L., Lowe, V. J., Przybelski, S. A., et al. (2021). Selecting software pipelines for change in flortaucipir SUVR: Balancing repeatability and group separation. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118259
Vancouver
Schwarz CG, Therneau TM, Weigand SD, Gunter JL, Lowe VJ, Przybelski SA, et al. Selecting software pipelines for change in flortaucipir SUVR: Balancing repeatability and group separation. NeuroImage. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118259. PMID: 34118395.
BibTeX
@article{schwarz2021-34118395,
author = {Schwarz, C. G. and Therneau, T. M. and Weigand, S. D. and Gunter, J. L. and Lowe, V. J. and Przybelski, S. A. and Senjem, M. L. and Botha, H. and others},
title = {{Selecting software pipelines for change in flortaucipir SUVR: Balancing repeatability and group separation}},
journal = {NeuroImage},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118259},
pmid = {34118395},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118259}
}
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
- Altogether, our results favored longitudinally SUVR methods and a temporal-lobe meta-ROI that includes adjacent (juxtacortical) WM, a composite reference region (eroded supratentorial WM + pons + whole cerebellum), 2-class voxel-based PVC, and median statistics.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants415
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following 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, 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 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 415 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 34118395) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 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 “balancing”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “balancing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.