2007
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.106.037762
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visual Assessment Versus Quantitative Assessment of 11C-PIB PET and 18F-FDG PET for Detection of Alzheimer's Disease

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

15
177
3
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 229 publications
(197 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
15
177
3
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Responders who routinely used FDG-PET assigned greater incremental diagnostic value than non-users -an added value that was perceived greater than that of CSF biomarkers. Although the association was not affected by the reading procedure ("traditional visual reading" or "quantitative tool"), a considerable amount of evidence indicates that automated quantitative tools are more accurate to detect the AD pattern of cortical hypometabolism than traditional readouts [28][29][30] and attenuate the "beginner effect" [29]. Another possible explanation is that FDG-PET requires experience to be of value, in contrast to CSF, which uses very simple cut-off values.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Responders who routinely used FDG-PET assigned greater incremental diagnostic value than non-users -an added value that was perceived greater than that of CSF biomarkers. Although the association was not affected by the reading procedure ("traditional visual reading" or "quantitative tool"), a considerable amount of evidence indicates that automated quantitative tools are more accurate to detect the AD pattern of cortical hypometabolism than traditional readouts [28][29][30] and attenuate the "beginner effect" [29]. Another possible explanation is that FDG-PET requires experience to be of value, in contrast to CSF, which uses very simple cut-off values.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although this is inevitable in the case of amyloid imaging where the only FDA-and EMA-approved procedure is structured visual rating, a number of automated or semiautomated tools are available for structural MR and FDG-PET [36][37][38][39][40]. However, despite their demonstrated superiority over visual assessments [28][29][30]41,42], these more quantitative measures are used by a minority of centers. We argue that scientific societies should engage in an active campaign to promote their use, once properly validated, in cognitively impaired patients undergoing assessment for suspected AD.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The deposition/retention of 11 C-PiB was calculated using the method previously described by Klunk et al [21]. Data from all participants imaged by PiB-PET was used to calculate the in vivo amyloid plaque load represented by SUVR, which is defined as the ratio of the standardized uptake value in each region of interest (ROI) to that of the cerebellar cortex [22].…”
Section: Pib-pet Imagingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ng et al 6 studied the inter-rater variability of 15 patients with AD and 25 cognitively normal subjects (NCs) and reported that visual agreement between 2 readers was good ( ϭ 0.56). Tolboom et al 7 studied the variability of 20 patients with AD and 20 NCs and reported that agreement between 2 readers was moderate ( ϭ 0.56).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%