Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 462

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Amyloid-β Imaging with Pittsburgh Compound B and Florbetapir: Comparing Radiotracers and Quantification Methods

Open access
Landau, Susan M., Breault, Christopher, Joshi, Abhinay D., Pontecorvo, Michael, Mathis, Chester A., Jagust, William J., Mintun, Mark A.·2013·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

UNLABELLED: (11)C-Pittsburgh compound B ((11)C-PiB) and (18)F-florbetapir amyloid-β (Aβ) PET radioligands have had a substantial impact on Alzheimer disease research. Although there is evidence that both radioligands bind to fibrillar Aβ in the brain, direct comparisons in the same individuals have not been reported. Here, we evaluated PiB and florbetapir in a retrospective convenience sample of cognitively normal older controls, patients with mild cognitive impairment, and patients with Alzheimer disease from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). METHODS: From the ADNI database, 32 participants were identified who had undergone at least 1 PiB study and subsequently underwent a florbetapir study approximately 1.5 y after the last PiB study. Cortical PiB and florbetapir retention was quantified using several different methods to determine the effect of preprocessing factors (such as smoothing and reference region selection) and image processing pipelines. RESULTS: There was a strong association between PiB and florbetapir cortical retention ratios (Spearman ρ = 0.86-0.95), and these were slightly lower than cortical retention ratios for consecutive PiB scans (Spearman ρ = 0.96-0.98) made approximately 1.1 y apart. Cortical retention ratios for Aβ-positive subjects tended to be higher for PiB than for florbetapir images, yielding slopes for linear regression of florbetapir against PiB of 0.59-0.64. Associations between consecutive PiB scans and between PiB and florbetapir scans remained strong, regardless of processing methods such as smoothing, spatial normalization to a PET template, and use of reference regions. The PiB-florbetapir association was used to interconvert cutoffs for Aβ positivity and negativity between the 2 radioligands, and these cutoffs were highly consistent in their assignment of Aβ status. CONCLUSION: PiB and florbetapir retention ratios were strongly associated in the same individuals, and this relationship was consistent across several data analysis methods, despite scan-rescan intervals of more than a year. Cutoff thresholds for determining positive or negative Aβ status can be reliably transformed from PiB to florbetapir units or vice versa using a population scanned with both radioligands.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.112.109009

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 462

Metadata

Authors
Landau, S. M., Breault, C., Joshi, A. D., Pontecorvo, M., Mathis, C. A., Jagust, W. J., & Mintun, M. A.
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2012-11-19
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
70-77
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W1977714477
Cited by
462
References
19
FWCI
14.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Amyloid-β Imaging with Pittsburgh Compound B and Florbetapir: Comparing Radiotracers and Quantification Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.112.109009
The paper
Landau, S. M., Breault, C., Joshi, A. D., Pontecorvo, M., Mathis, C. A., Jagust, W. J., & Mintun, M. A. (2013). Amyloid-β Imaging with Pittsburgh Compound B and Florbetapir: Comparing Radiotracers and Quantification Methods. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.109009

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.