PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the visual assessment of positron emission tomography images of N-[methyl-11C]2-(4'-methylaminophenyl)-6-hydroxybenzothiazole ([11C]PIB) in a patient population with mild to moderate memory impairment or dementia. METHODS: We compared the visual ratings of two readers using kappa statistics and correlated the results of visual and quantitative region of interest (ROI) analyses. The one reader had good experience in evaluating PIB images and the other had little previous experience. The sensitivity and specificity of the visual assessment was determined using quantitative data from 18 healthy controls previously examined: [11C]PIB uptake was considered as abnormal if it was more than 2 SD above the mean of the healthy subjects. RESULTS: The evaluation of visual classification as "normal" or "abnormal" showed good interobserver agreement (kappa = 0.90). There was a clear correlation between visual and quantitative analysis (r = 0.47-0.79, p < 0.001). The most difficult visually assessed brain area was the putamen (kappa = 0.11; correlation with quantitative analysis: reader A r = 0.22; reader B r = 0.60). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that visual evaluation of [(11)C]PIB images conforms with quantitative analyses also in a clinical patient population supporting the feasibility of visual evaluation in clinical settings.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the visual assessment of positron emission tomography images of N-[methyl-11C]2-(4'-methylaminophenyl)-6-hydroxybenzothiazole ([11C]PIB) in a patient population with mild to moderate memory impairment or dementia. METHODS: We compared the visual ratings of two readers using kappa statistics and correlated the results of visual and quantitative region of interest (ROI) analyses. The one reader had good experience in evaluating PIB images and the other had little previous experience. The sensitivity and specificity of the visual assessment was determined using quantitative data from 18 healthy controls previously examined: [11C]PIB uptake was considered as abnormal if it was more than 2 SD above the mean of the healthy subjects. RESULTS: The evaluation of visual classification as "normal" or "abnormal" showed good interobserver agreement (kappa = 0.90). There was a clear correlation between visual and quantitative analysis (r = 0.47-0.79, p < 0.001). The most difficult visually assessed brain area was the putamen (kappa = 0.11; correlation with quantitative analysis: reader A r = 0.22; reader B r = 0.60). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that visual evaluation of [(11)C]PIB images conforms with quantitative analyses also in a clinical patient population supporting the feasibility of visual evaluation in clinical settings.
Authors: N M Kemppainen; S Aalto; I A Wilson; K Någren; S Helin; A Brück; V Oikonen; M Kailajärvi; M Scheinin; M Viitanen; R Parkkola; J O Rinne Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-09-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Brian J Lopresti; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Jessica A Hoge; Scott K Ziolko; Xueling Lu; Carolyn C Meltzer; Kurt Schimmel; Nicholas D Tsopelas; Steven T DeKosky; Julie C Price Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anne M Fagan; Mark A Mintun; Robert H Mach; Sang-Yoon Lee; Carmen S Dence; Aarti R Shah; Gina N LaRossa; Michael L Spinner; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Steven T DeKosky; John C Morris; David M Holtzman Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Keith A Johnson; Matt Gregas; John A Becker; Catherine Kinnecom; David H Salat; Erin K Moran; Erin E Smith; Jonathan Rosand; Dorene M Rentz; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Julie C Price; Steven T Dekosky; Alan J Fischman; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Sargo Aalto; Noora M Scheinin; Nina M Kemppainen; Kjell Någren; Marita Kailajärvi; Mika Leinonen; Mika Scheinin; Juha O Rinne Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-06-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: J Koivunen; A Verkkoniemi; S Aalto; A Paetau; J-P Ahonen; M Viitanen; K Någren; J Rokka; M Haaparanta; H Kalimo; J O Rinne Journal: Brain Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: N M Kemppainen; S Aalto; I A Wilson; K Någren; S Helin; A Brück; V Oikonen; M Kailajärvi; M Scheinin; M Viitanen; R Parkkola; J O Rinne Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-05-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Oskar Hansson; Henrik Zetterberg; Peder Buchhave; Elisabet Londos; Kaj Blennow; Lennart Minthon Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Rebecca L McNamee; Seong-Hwan Yee; Julie C Price; William E Klunk; Bedda Rosario; Lisa Weissfeld; Scott Ziolko; Michael Berginc; Brian Lopresti; Steven Dekosky; Chester A Mathis Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: C C Rowe; S Ng; U Ackermann; S J Gong; K Pike; G Savage; T F Cowie; K L Dickinson; P Maruff; D Darby; C Smith; M Woodward; J Merory; H Tochon-Danguy; G O'Keefe; W E Klunk; C A Mathis; J C Price; C L Masters; V L Villemagne Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Dustin Hammers; Elizabeth Spurgeon; Kelly Ryan; Carol Persad; Judith Heidebrink; Nancy Barbas; Roger Albin; Kirk Frey; David Darby; Bruno Giordani Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: James F Burke; Roger L Albin; Robert A Koeppe; Bruno Giordani; Michael R Kilbourn; Sid Gilman; Kirk A Frey Journal: Brain Date: 2011-05-09 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Ann D Cohen; Wenzhu Mowrey; Lisa A Weissfeld; Howard J Aizenstein; Eric McDade; James M Mountz; Robert D Nebes; Judith A Saxton; Beth Snitz; Steven Dekosky; Jeff Williamson; Oscar L Lopez; Julie C Price; Chester A Mathis; William E Klunk Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 6.556