Cited by 48Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Visual-statistical interpretation of 18F-FDG-PET images for characteristic alzheimer patterns in a multicenter study: inter-rater concordance and relationship to automated quantitative evaluation

Open access
Yamane, T., Ikari, Y., Nishio, T., Ishii, K., Ishii, K., Kato, T., Ito, K., Silverman, D. H. S. +6 more·2014·American Journal of Neuroradiology

Abstract

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.

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 · 10.3174/ajnr.a3665

Cites

16 of 16 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yamane, T., Ikari, Y., Nishio, T., Ishii, K., Ishii, K., Kato, T., Ito, K., Silverman, D. H. S., Senda, M., Asada, T., Arai, H., Sugishita, M., Iwatsubo, T., & the J-ADNI Study Group
Affiliations
  • Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Tsukuba (JP)
  • Tohoku University (JP)
  • Institute of Brain and Blood Vessels (JP)
Venue
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Published
2013-08-01
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
244-249
ISSN
  • 0195-6108 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-959X
OpenAlex
W2157391751
Cited by
48
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • American Journal of Neuroradiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
  • Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
  • Eli Lilly Japan
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
18F-FDG PET, Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, inter-rater concordance, PET/CT
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Alzheimer Disease, Artificial Intelligence, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Japan, Male, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, 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