Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Validation of amyloid PET positivity thresholds in centiloids: a multisite PET study approach
Royse SK, Minhas DS, Lopresti BJ, Murphy A, Ward T, Koeppe RA, Bullich S, DeSanti S et al.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2021-05-10
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Results The FBB threshold based on the young sample (1.08; 18 CL) was consistent with that of the data-driven approach (1.10; 21 CL), and the existing FBP threshold converted to CL with the derived transformation (1.11; 20 CL). The following equations can be used to convert whole cerebellum- (cross-sectional) and composite- (longitudinal) normalized FBB and FBP data quantified with the native-space pipeline to CL units: [ 18 F]FBB: CL whole cerebellum = 157.15 × SUVR FBB - 151.87; threshold=1.08, 18 CL [ 18 F]FBP: CL whole cerebellum = 188.22 × SUVR FBP - 189.16; threshold=1.11, 20 CL [ 18 F]FBB: CL composite = 244.20 × SUVR FBB - 170.80 [ 18 F]FBP: CL composite = 300.66 × SUVR FBP - 208.84 CONCLUSIONS: FBB and FBP positivity thresholds derived from independent young control samples and quantified using an automated, native-space approach result in similar CL values. These findings are applicable to thousands of available and anticipated outcomes analyzed using this pipeline and shared with the scientific community.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Royse, S. K., Minhas, D. S., Lopresti, B. J., Murphy, A., Ward, T., Koeppe, R. A., et al. (2021). Validation of amyloid PET positivity thresholds in centiloids: a multisite PET study approach. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00836-1
Vancouver
Royse SK, Minhas DS, Lopresti BJ, Murphy A, Ward T, Koeppe RA, et al. Validation of amyloid PET positivity thresholds in centiloids: a multisite PET study approach. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2021. doi:10.1186/s13195-021-00836-1. PMID: 33971965.
BibTeX
@article{royse2021-33971965,
author = {Royse, S. K. and Minhas, D. S. and Lopresti, B. J. and Murphy, A. and Ward, T. and Koeppe, R. A. and Bullich, S. and DeSanti, S. and others},
title = {{Validation of amyloid PET positivity thresholds in centiloids: a multisite PET study approach}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-021-00836-1},
pmid = {33971965},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00836-1}
}
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
- Results The FBB threshold based on the young sample (1.08; 18 CL) was consistent with that of the data-driven approach (1.10; 21 CL), and the existing FBP threshold converted to CL with the derived transformation (1.11; 20 CL).
- The following equations can be used to convert whole cerebellum- (cross-sectional) and composite- (longitudinal) normalized FBB and FBP data quantified with the native-space pipeline to CL units: [ 18 F]FBB: CL whole cerebellum = 157.15 × SUVR FBB - 151.87; threshold=1.08, 18 CL [ 18 F]FBP: CL whole cerebellum = 188.22 × SUVR FBP - 189.16; threshold=1.11, 20 CL [ 18 F]FBB: CL composite = 244.20 × SUVR FBB - 170.80 [ 18 F]FBP: CL composite = 300.66 × SUVR FBP - 208.84 CONCLUSIONS: FBB and FBP positivity thresholds derived from independent young control samples and quantified using an automated, native-space approach result in similar CL values.
- These findings are applicable to thousands of available and anticipated outcomes analyzed using this pipeline and shared with the scientific community.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants62
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in 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 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in 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 | 1 / 4 | 62 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 33971965) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 35 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100. |
| Total | 60 / 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 “18f”
319 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 319 tagged studies.