Cited by 9Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Spatial covariance analysis of FDG-PET and HMPAO-SPECT for the differential diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer's disease

Open access
Ingram, Matthew, Colloby, Sean J., Firbank, Michael J., Lloyd, Jim J., O'Brien, John T., Taylor, John-Paul·2022·Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

We investigated diagnostic characteristics of spatial covariance analysis (SCA) of FDG-PET and HMPAO-SPECT scans in the differential diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Alzheimer's disease (AD), in comparison with visual ratings and region of interest (ROI) analysis. Sixty-seven patients (DLB 29, AD 38) had both HMPAO-SPECT and FDG-PET scans. Spatial covariance patterns were used to separate AD and DLB in an initial derivation group (DLB n=15, AD n=19), before being forward applied to an independent group (DLB n=14, AD n=19). Visual ratings were by consensus, with ROI analysis utilising medial occipital/medial temporal uptake ratios. SCA of HMPAO-SPECT performed poorly (AUC 0.59±0.10), whilst SCA of FDG-PET (AUC 0.83±0.07) was significantly better. For FDG-PET, SCA showed similar diagnostic performance to ROI analysis (AUC 0.84±0.08) and visual rating (AUC 0.82±0.08). In contrast to ROI analysis, there was little concordance between SCA and visual ratings of FDG-PET scans. We conclude that SCA of FDG-PET outperforms that of HMPAO-SPECT. SCA of FDG-PET also performed similarly to the other analytical approaches, despite the limitations of a relatively small SCA derivation group. Compared to visual rating, SCA of FDG-PET relies on different sources of group variance to separate DLB from AD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2022.111460

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ingram, M., Colloby, S. J., Firbank, M. J., Lloyd, J. J., O'Brien, J. T., & Taylor, J.-P.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Ingram, Matthew
Venue
Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
322
Pages
111460
ISSN
0925-4927 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4220957256
Cited by
9
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (PB-PG-1207-13105)
  • University of Cambridge
  • Newcastle University
  • Cambridge University Hospitals
  • Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Research for Patient Benefit Programme
  • NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
dementia with Lewy bodies, Alzheimer's disease, differential diagnosis, FDG-PET, HMPAO SPECT, brain glucose metabolism, brain perfusion imaging, visual rating, region of interest analysis
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Diagnosis, Differential, Humans, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Lewy Body Disease, Positron-Emission Tomography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review