比较淀粉样蛋白 PET 不同分析方法:CapAIBL 法、VIZCalc 法和 Amyquant 法在纤度上的一致性。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Annals of Nuclear Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-21 DOI:10.1007/s12149-024-01919-3
Cong Shang, Keita Sakurai, Takashi Nihashi, Yutaka Arahata, Akinori Takeda, Kazunari Ishii, Kenji Ishii, Hiroshi Matsuda, Kengo Ito, Takashi Kato, Hiroshi Toyama, Akinori Nakamura, BATON Study Group
{"title":"比较淀粉样蛋白 PET 不同分析方法:CapAIBL 法、VIZCalc 法和 Amyquant 法在纤度上的一致性。","authors":"Cong Shang,&nbsp;Keita Sakurai,&nbsp;Takashi Nihashi,&nbsp;Yutaka Arahata,&nbsp;Akinori Takeda,&nbsp;Kazunari Ishii,&nbsp;Kenji Ishii,&nbsp;Hiroshi Matsuda,&nbsp;Kengo Ito,&nbsp;Takashi Kato,&nbsp;Hiroshi Toyama,&nbsp;Akinori Nakamura,&nbsp;BATON Study Group","doi":"10.1007/s12149-024-01919-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The Centiloid (CL) scale is a standardized measure for quantifying amyloid deposition in amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. We aimed to assess the agreement among 3 CL calculation methods: CapAIBL, VIZCalc, and Amyquant.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study included 192 participants (mean age: 71.5 years, range: 50–87 years), comprising 55 with Alzheimer’s disease, 65 with mild cognitive impairment, 13 with non-Alzheimer's dementia, and 59 cognitively normal participants. All the participants were assessed using the three CL calculation methods. Spearman’s rank correlation, linear regression, Friedman tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and Bland–Altman analysis were employed to assess data correlations, linear associations, method differences, and systematic bias, respectively.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Strong correlations (rho = 0.99, <i>p</i> &lt; .001) were observed among the CL values calculated using the three methods. Scatter plots and regression lines visually confirmed these strong correlations and met the validation criteria. Despite the robust correlations, a significant difference in CL value between CapAIBL and Amyquant was observed (36.1 ± 39.7 vs. 34.9 ± 39.4; <i>p</i> &lt; .001). In contrast, no significant differences were found between CapAIBL and VIZCalc or between VIZCalc and Amyquant. The Bland–Altman analysis showed no observable systematic bias between the methods.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The study demonstrated strong agreement among the three methods for calculating CL values. Despite minor variations in the absolute values of the Centiloid scores obtained using these methods, the overall agreement suggests that they are interchangeable.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8007,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Nuclear Medicine","volume":"38 6","pages":"460 - 467"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11108942/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of consistency in centiloid scale among different analytical methods in amyloid PET: the CapAIBL, VIZCalc, and Amyquant methods\",\"authors\":\"Cong Shang,&nbsp;Keita Sakurai,&nbsp;Takashi Nihashi,&nbsp;Yutaka Arahata,&nbsp;Akinori Takeda,&nbsp;Kazunari Ishii,&nbsp;Kenji Ishii,&nbsp;Hiroshi Matsuda,&nbsp;Kengo Ito,&nbsp;Takashi Kato,&nbsp;Hiroshi Toyama,&nbsp;Akinori Nakamura,&nbsp;BATON Study Group\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12149-024-01919-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The Centiloid (CL) scale is a standardized measure for quantifying amyloid deposition in amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. We aimed to assess the agreement among 3 CL calculation methods: CapAIBL, VIZCalc, and Amyquant.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study included 192 participants (mean age: 71.5 years, range: 50–87 years), comprising 55 with Alzheimer’s disease, 65 with mild cognitive impairment, 13 with non-Alzheimer's dementia, and 59 cognitively normal participants. All the participants were assessed using the three CL calculation methods. Spearman’s rank correlation, linear regression, Friedman tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and Bland–Altman analysis were employed to assess data correlations, linear associations, method differences, and systematic bias, respectively.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Strong correlations (rho = 0.99, <i>p</i> &lt; .001) were observed among the CL values calculated using the three methods. Scatter plots and regression lines visually confirmed these strong correlations and met the validation criteria. Despite the robust correlations, a significant difference in CL value between CapAIBL and Amyquant was observed (36.1 ± 39.7 vs. 34.9 ± 39.4; <i>p</i> &lt; .001). In contrast, no significant differences were found between CapAIBL and VIZCalc or between VIZCalc and Amyquant. The Bland–Altman analysis showed no observable systematic bias between the methods.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The study demonstrated strong agreement among the three methods for calculating CL values. Despite minor variations in the absolute values of the Centiloid scores obtained using these methods, the overall agreement suggests that they are interchangeable.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8007,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Nuclear Medicine\",\"volume\":\"38 6\",\"pages\":\"460 - 467\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11108942/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Nuclear Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12149-024-01919-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Nuclear Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12149-024-01919-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:Centiloid(CL)量表是淀粉样蛋白正电子发射断层扫描(PET)成像中量化淀粉样蛋白沉积的标准化测量方法。我们旨在评估三种 CL 计算方法之间的一致性:方法:本研究共纳入 192 名参与者(平均年龄:71.5 岁,范围:50-87 岁),其中包括 55 名阿尔茨海默氏症患者、65 名轻度认知障碍患者、13 名非阿尔茨海默氏症痴呆患者和 59 名认知能力正常的参与者。所有参与者均采用三种CL计算方法进行评估。采用斯皮尔曼秩相关、线性回归、弗里德曼检验、Wilcoxon符号秩检验和Bland-Altman分析分别评估数据相关性、线性相关、方法差异和系统性偏差:强相关性(rho = 0.99,p 结论:研究表明,三种方法的数据具有很强的一致性:研究表明,计算 CL 值的三种方法之间存在很强的一致性。尽管使用这些方法得出的 Centiloid 分数的绝对值略有不同,但总体上的一致性表明它们是可以互换的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of consistency in centiloid scale among different analytical methods in amyloid PET: the CapAIBL, VIZCalc, and Amyquant methods

Objective

The Centiloid (CL) scale is a standardized measure for quantifying amyloid deposition in amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. We aimed to assess the agreement among 3 CL calculation methods: CapAIBL, VIZCalc, and Amyquant.

Methods

This study included 192 participants (mean age: 71.5 years, range: 50–87 years), comprising 55 with Alzheimer’s disease, 65 with mild cognitive impairment, 13 with non-Alzheimer's dementia, and 59 cognitively normal participants. All the participants were assessed using the three CL calculation methods. Spearman’s rank correlation, linear regression, Friedman tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and Bland–Altman analysis were employed to assess data correlations, linear associations, method differences, and systematic bias, respectively.

Results

Strong correlations (rho = 0.99, p < .001) were observed among the CL values calculated using the three methods. Scatter plots and regression lines visually confirmed these strong correlations and met the validation criteria. Despite the robust correlations, a significant difference in CL value between CapAIBL and Amyquant was observed (36.1 ± 39.7 vs. 34.9 ± 39.4; p < .001). In contrast, no significant differences were found between CapAIBL and VIZCalc or between VIZCalc and Amyquant. The Bland–Altman analysis showed no observable systematic bias between the methods.

Conclusions

The study demonstrated strong agreement among the three methods for calculating CL values. Despite minor variations in the absolute values of the Centiloid scores obtained using these methods, the overall agreement suggests that they are interchangeable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Nuclear Medicine
Annals of Nuclear Medicine 医学-核医学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
111
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Nuclear Medicine is an official journal of the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine. It develops the appropriate application of radioactive substances and stable nuclides in the field of medicine. The journal promotes the exchange of ideas and information and research in nuclear medicine and includes the medical application of radionuclides and related subjects. It presents original articles, short communications, reviews and letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Role of visual information in multimodal large language model performance: an evaluation using the Japanese nuclear medicine board examination. Comparison of early and standard 18F-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging in treatment-naïve patients with prostate cancer. Increased individual workload for nuclear medicine physicians over the past years: 2008-2023 data from The Netherlands. Research trends and hotspots of radioiodine-refractory thyroid cancer treatment in the twenty-first century: a bibliometric analysis. Long-term effect of postoperative radioactive iodine therapy on parathyroid function in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1