Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
The influence of biological and technical factors on quantitative analysis of amyloid PET: Points to consider and recommendations for controlling variability in longitudinal data
Schmidt ME, Chiao P, Klein G, Matthews D, Thurfjell L, Cole PE, Margolin R, Landau S et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2014-11-24
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
In vivo imaging of amyloid burden with positron emission tomography (PET) provides a means for studying the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's and related diseases. Measurement of subtle changes in amyloid burden requires quantitative analysis of image data. Reliable quantitative analysis of amyloid PET scans acquired at multiple sites and over time requires rigorous standardization of acquisition protocols, subject management, tracer administration, image quality control, and image processing and analysis methods. We review critical points in the acquisition and analysis of amyloid PET, identify ways in which technical factors can contribute to measurement variability, and suggest methods for mitigating these sources of noise. Improved quantitative accuracy could reduce the sample size necessary to detect intervention effects when amyloid PET is used as a treatment end point and allow more reliable interpretation of change in amyloid burden and its relationship to clinical course.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Schmidt, M. E., Chiao, P., Klein, G., Matthews, D., Thurfjell, L., Cole, P. E., et al. (2015). The influence of biological and technical factors on quantitative analysis of amyloid PET: Points to consider and recommendations for controlling variability in longitudinal data. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2014.09.004
Vancouver
Schmidt ME, Chiao P, Klein G, Matthews D, Thurfjell L, Cole PE, et al. The influence of biological and technical factors on quantitative analysis of amyloid PET: Points to consider and recommendations for controlling variability in longitudinal data. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2014.09.004. PMID: 25457431.
BibTeX
@article{schmidt2015-25457431,
author = {Schmidt, M. E. and Chiao, P. and Klein, G. and Matthews, D. and Thurfjell, L. and Cole, P. E. and Margolin, R. and Landau, S. and others},
title = {{The influence of biological and technical factors on quantitative analysis of amyloid PET: Points to consider and recommendations for controlling variability in longitudinal data}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2014.09.004},
pmid = {25457431},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2014.09.004}
}
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
- In vivo imaging of amyloid burden with positron emission tomography (PET) provides a means for studying the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's and related diseases.
- Measurement of subtle changes in amyloid burden requires quantitative analysis of image data.
- Reliable quantitative analysis of amyloid PET scans acquired at multiple sites and over time requires rigorous standardization of acquisition protocols, subject management, tracer administration, image quality control, and image processing and analysis methods.
- We review critical points in the acquisition and analysis of amyloid PET, identify ways in which technical factors can contribute to measurement variability, and suggest methods for mitigating these sources of noise.
- Improved quantitative accuracy could reduce the sample size necessary to detect intervention effects when amyloid PET is used as a treatment end point and allow more reliable interpretation of change in amyloid burden and its relationship to clinical course.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 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 | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| 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 | — / 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 25457431) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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 “biological”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “biological”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.