Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Simplified quantification of Pittsburgh Compound B amyloid imaging PET studies: a comparative analysis.
Brian J. Lopresti, William E. Klunk, Chester A. Mathis, Jessica A. Hoge, Scott K. Ziolko, Xueling Lu, CAROLYN CIDIS MELTZER, Kurt Schimmel, Nicholas D. Tsopelas, Steven T. DeKosky, Julie C. Price. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2005-12-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
UNLABELLED: PET studies have been performed using the amyloid binding radiotracer Pittsburgh Compound B (PIB). Previous quantitative analyses using arterial blood showed that the Logan graphical analysis using 90 min of emission data (ART90) provided a reliable measure of PIB retention. This work reports on simplified methods of analysis for human PIB imaging. METHODS: PIB PET scans were conducted in 24 subjects (6 Alzheimer's disease [AD], 10 mild cognitive impairment [MCI], 8 controls) with arterial blood sampling. Retest scans were performed on 8 subjects (3 AD, 1 MCI, 4 controls) within 28 d. Data were analyzed over 60 and 90 min using the Logan analysis and (a) metabolite-corrected input functions based on arterial plasma (ART60, ART90), (b) carotid artery time-activity data with a population average metabolite correction (CAR60, CAR90); and (c) cerebellar reference tissue (CER60, CER90). Data also were analyzed using the simplified reference tissue method (SRTM60, SRTM90) and a single-scan method based on late-scan ratios of standardized uptake values (SUVR60, SUVR90). RESULTS: All methods of analysis examined effectively discerned regional differences between AD and control subjects in amyloid-laden cortical regions, although the performance of the simplified methods varied in terms of bias, test-retest variability, intersubject variability, and effect size. CAR90 best agreed with ART90 distribution volume ratio (DVR) measures across brain regions and subject groups and demonstrated satisfactory test-retest variability (+/-7.1% across regions). CER90 and CER60 showed negative biases relative to ART90 in high-DVR subjects but had the lowest test-retest variability. The single-scan SUV-based methods showed the largest effect sizes for AD and control group differences and performed well in terms of intersubject and test-retest variability. CONCLUSION: Of the simplified methods for PIB analysis examined, CAR90 provided DVR measures that were most comparable to ART90; CER90 was the most reproducible and SUVR90 produced the largest effect size. All simplified methods were effective at distinguishing AD and control differences and may be effectively used in the analysis of PIB. SUVR60 data can be obtained with as little as 20 min of PET emission data collection. The relative strengths and limitations of each method must be considered for each experimental design.
Why it matters
Compared simpler ways to measure amyloid on PiB PET scans in 24 people (Alzheimer's, mild cognitive impairment and controls) against a method that needs arterial blood sampling. All the simplified methods told Alzheimer's apart from controls, each with different strengths, and one needs as little as 20 minutes of scan data.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
How this study scored 44/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on strength of evidence and journal's citation record, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 91 points we could judge it on, which is 44 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 | — / 5 | No evidence rating recorded — left out of this score |
| 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 | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 6 / 7 | Cited 542 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 4 / 5 | 23.6 citations a year over 23 year(s) since 2005 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 14.5× 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 | 2 / 4 | Cited 27 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Julie C. Price: h-index 83 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | University of Pittsburgh: institution h-index 1,470 (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 16330558) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 40 / 91 | Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 91 points we could judge it on is 44 out of 100. |
| Total | 44 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), 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 names 11 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.
APA 7th
Lopresti, B. J., Klunk, W. E., Mathis, C. A., Hoge, J. A., Ziolko, S. K., Lu, X., et al. (2005). Simplified quantification of Pittsburgh Compound B amyloid imaging PET studies: a comparative analysis. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
Vancouver
Lopresti BJ, Klunk WE, Mathis CA, Hoge JA, Ziolko SK, Lu X, et al. Simplified quantification of Pittsburgh Compound B amyloid imaging PET studies: a comparative analysis. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2005. PMID: 16330558.
BibTeX
@article{lopresti2005-16330558,
author = {Lopresti, Brian J. and Klunk, William E. and Mathis, Chester A. and Hoge, Jessica A. and Ziolko, Scott K. and Lu, Xueling and MELTZER, CAROLYN CIDIS and Schimmel, Kurt and Tsopelas, Nicholas D. and DeKosky, Steven T. and Price, Julie C.},
title = {{Simplified quantification of Pittsburgh Compound B amyloid imaging PET studies: a comparative analysis}},
journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine},
year = {2005},
pmid = {16330558}
}
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “classification”
835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.