BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The role of (18)F-FDG-PET in the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease is increasing and should be validated. The aim of this study was to assess the inter-rater variability in the interpretation of (18)F-FDG-PET images obtained in the Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a multicenter clinical research project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study analyzed 274 (18)F-FDG-PET scans (67 mild Alzheimer disease, 100 mild cognitive impairment, and 107 normal cognitive) as baseline scans for the Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, which were acquired with various types of PET or PET/CT scanners in 23 facilities. Three independent raters interpreted all PET images by using a combined visual-statistical method. The images were classified into 7 (FDG-7) patterns by the criteria of Silverman et al and further into 2 (FDG-2) patterns. RESULTS: Agreement among the 7 visual-statistical categories by at least 2 of the 3 readers occurred in >94% of cases for all groups: Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and normal cognitive. Perfect matches by all 3 raters were observed for 62% of the cases by FDG-7 and 76 by FDG-2. Inter-rater concordance was moderate by FDG-7 (κ = 0.57) and substantial in FDG-2 (κ = 0.67) on average. The FDG-PET score, an automated quantitative index developed by Herholz et al, increased as the number of raters who voted for the AD pattern increased (ρ = 0.59, P < .0001), and the FDG-PET score decreased as those for normal pattern increased (ρ = -0.64, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Inter-rater agreement was moderate to substantial for the combined visual-statistical interpretation of (18)F-FDG-PET and was also significantly associated with automated quantitative assessment.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The role of (18)F-FDG-PET in the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease is increasing and should be validated. The aim of this study was to assess the inter-rater variability in the interpretation of (18)F-FDG-PET images obtained in the Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a multicenter clinical research project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study analyzed 274 (18)F-FDG-PET scans (67 mild Alzheimer disease, 100 mild cognitive impairment, and 107 normal cognitive) as baseline scans for the Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, which were acquired with various types of PET or PET/CT scanners in 23 facilities. Three independent raters interpreted all PET images by using a combined visual-statistical method. The images were classified into 7 (FDG-7) patterns by the criteria of Silverman et al and further into 2 (FDG-2) patterns. RESULTS: Agreement among the 7 visual-statistical categories by at least 2 of the 3 readers occurred in >94% of cases for all groups: Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and normal cognitive. Perfect matches by all 3 raters were observed for 62% of the cases by FDG-7 and 76 by FDG-2. Inter-rater concordance was moderate by FDG-7 (κ = 0.57) and substantial in FDG-2 (κ = 0.67) on average. The FDG-PET score, an automated quantitative index developed by Herholz et al, increased as the number of raters who voted for the AD pattern increased (ρ = 0.59, P < .0001), and the FDG-PET score decreased as those for normal pattern increased (ρ = -0.64, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Inter-rater agreement was moderate to substantial for the combined visual-statistical interpretation of (18)F-FDG-PET and was also significantly associated with automated quantitative assessment.
Authors: K Herholz; E Salmon; D Perani; J C Baron; V Holthoff; L Frölich; P Schönknecht; K Ito; R Mielke; E Kalbe; G Zündorf; X Delbeuck; O Pelati; D Anchisi; F Fazio; N Kerrouche; B Desgranges; F Eustache; B Beuthien-Baumann; C Menzel; J Schröder; T Kato; Y Arahata; M Henze; W D Heiss Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Steven Ng; Victor L Villemagne; Sam Berlangieri; Sze-Ting Lee; Martin Cherk; Sylvia J Gong; Uwe Ackermann; Tim Saunder; Henri Tochon-Danguy; Gareth Jones; Clare Smith; Graeme O'Keefe; Colin L Masters; Christopher C Rowe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Norman L Foster; Judith L Heidebrink; Christopher M Clark; William J Jagust; Steven E Arnold; Nancy R Barbas; Charles S DeCarli; R Scott Turner; Robert A Koeppe; Roger Higdon; Satoshi Minoshima Journal: Brain Date: 2007-08-18 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: William E Klunk; Robert A Koeppe; Julie C Price; Tammie L Benzinger; Michael D Devous; William J Jagust; Keith A Johnson; Chester A Mathis; Davneet Minhas; Michael J Pontecorvo; Christopher C Rowe; Daniel M Skovronsky; Mark A Mintun Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Trine K Lauridsen; Kasper K Iversen; Nikolaj Ihlemann; Philip Hasbak; Annika Loft; Anne K Berthelsen; Anders Dahl; Danijela Dejanovic; Elisabeth Albrecht-Beste; Jann Mortensen; Andreas Kjær; Henning Bundgaard; Niels Eske Bruun Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Nicholas R Harn; Suzanne L Hunt; Jacqueline Hill; Eric Vidoni; Mark Perry; Jeffrey M Burns Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Agnieszka Zmyslowska; Bogdan Malkowski; Wojciech Fendler; Maciej Borowiec; Karolina Antosik; Piotr Gnys; Dobromila Baranska; Wojciech Mlynarski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-12-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Emilio Merlo Pich; Andreas Jeromin; Giovanni B Frisoni; Derek Hill; Andrew Lockhart; Mark E Schmidt; Martin R Turner; Stefania Mondello; William Z Potter Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 6.982