Cited by 80Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

Test-retest reproducibility for the tau PET imaging agent flortaucipir F 18.

Open access
Devous, Michael D., Joshi, Abhinay D., Navitsky, Michael, Southekal, Sudeepti, Pontecorvo, Michael J., Shen, Haiqing, Lu, Ming, Shankle, William R. +3 more·2018·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

Alzheimer disease (AD) is characterized by β-amyloid (Aβ) plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles. There are several PET imaging biomarkers for Aβ including 11C-PiB and 18F-florbetapir. Recently, PET tracers for tau neurofibrillary tangles have become available and have shown utility in detection and monitoring of neurofibrillary pathology over time. Flortaucipir F 18 is one such tracer. Initial clinical studies indicated greater tau binding in AD and mild cognitive impairment patients than in controls in a pattern consistent with tau pathology observed at autopsy. However, little is known about the reproducibility of such findings. To our knowledge, this study reports the first data regarding test–retest reproducibility of flortaucipir F 18 PET. Methods: Twenty-one subjects who completed the study (5 healthy controls, 6 mild cognitive impairment, and 10 AD) received 370 MBq of flortaucipir F 18 and were imaged for 20 min beginning 80 min after injection and again at 110 min after injection. Follow-up (retest) imaging occurred between 48 h and 4 wk after initial imaging. Images were spatially normalized to Montreal Neurological Institute template space. SUVRs were calculated using AAL (Automated Anatomical Labeling atlas) volumes of interest (VOIs) for parietal, temporal, occipital, anterior, and posterior hippocampal, parahippocampal, and fusiform regions, as well as a posterior neocortical VOI composed of average values from parietal, temporal, and occipital areas. Further, a VOI derived by discriminant analysis that maximally separated diagnostic groups (multiblock barycentric discriminant analysis [MUBADA]) was used. All VOIs were referenced to a subsection of cerebellar gray matter (cere-crus) as well as a parametrically derived white matter–based reference region (parametric estimate of reference signal intensity [PERSI]). t test, correlation analyses, and intraclass correlation coefficient were used to explore test–retest performance. Results: Test–retest analyses demonstrated low variability in flortaucipir F 18 SUVR. The SD of mean percentage change between test and retest using the PERSI reference region was 2.22% for a large posterior neocortical VOI, 1.84% for MUBADA, 1.46% for frontal, 1.98% for temporal, 2.28% for parietal, and 3.27% for occipital VOIs. Further, significant correlations (R2 > 0.85; P < 0.001) were observed for all regions, and intraclass correlation coefficient values (test–retest consistency) were greater than 0.92 for all regions. Conclusion: Significant test–retest reproducibility for flortaucipir F 18 was found across neocortical and mesial temporal lobe structures. These preliminary data suggest that flortaucipir F 18 tau imaging could be used to examine changes in tau burden over time.

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.117.200691

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Fuentes P, Catalan J. A clinical perspective: anti tau's treatment in Alzheimer's disease. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2011;8:686-688.
  2. Murray ME, Kouri N, Lin WL, Jack CR Jr, Dickson DW, Vemuri P. Clinico- pathologic assessment and imaging of tauopathies in neurodegenerative demen- tias. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2014;6:1-13.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Devous, M. D., Joshi, A. D., Navitsky, M., Southekal, S., Pontecorvo, M. J., Shen, H., Lu, M., Shankle, W. R., Seibyl, J. P., Marek, K., & Mintun, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Avid Radiopharmaceuticals (United States) (US)
  • Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (US)
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2017-12-28
Volume
59
Issue
6
Pages
937-943
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2780392608
Cited by
79
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
tau PET imaging, test-retest reproducibility, Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, neurofibrillary tangles, standardized uptake value ratio, intraclass correlation coefficient, inter-rater reliability, [11C]PIB, 18F-florbetapir
MeSH terms
Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Carbolines, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reproducibility of Results, Case-Control Studies, tau Proteins, Positron-Emission Tomography, Cognitive Dysfunction

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