4.2 Article

Performance of FDG PET for Detection of Alzheimer's Disease in Two Independent Multicentre Samples (NEST-DD and ADNI)

期刊

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 259-266

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000241879

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Healthy control; F-18-FDG PET; Automated analysis; Discrimination analysis; Biomarker; NEST-DD; ADNI

资金

  1. European Commission [CLRT1999- 02178]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [U19AG010483] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: We investigated the performance of FDG PET using an automated procedure for discrimination between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and controls, and studied the influence of demographic and technical factors. Methods: FDG PET data were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) [102 controls (76.0 +/- 4.9 years) and 89 AD patients (75.7 +/- 7.6 years, MMSE 23.5 +/- 2.1) and the Network for Standardisation of Dementia Diagnosis (NEST-DD) [36 controls (62.2 +/- 5.0 years) and 237 AD patients (70.8 +/- 8.3 years, MMSE 20.9 +/- 4.4). The procedure created t-maps of abnormal voxels. The sum of t-values in predefined areas that are typically affected by AD (AD t-sum) provided a measure of scan abnormality associated with a preset threshold for discrimination between patients and controls. Results: AD patients had much higher AD t-sum scores compared to controls (p<0.01), which were significantly related to dementia severity (ADNI: r = -0.62, p < 0.01; NEST-DD: r = -0.59, p < 0.01). Early-onset AD patients had significantly higher AD t-sum scores than late-onset AD patients (p < 0.01). Differences between databases were mainly due to different age distributions. The predefined AD t-sum threshold yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 83 and 78% in ADNI and 78 and 94% in NEST-DD, respectively. Conclusion: The automated FDG PET analysis procedure provided good discrimination power, and was most accurate for early-onset AD. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据