Spatial covariance analysis of FDG-PET and HMPAO-SPECT for the differential diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer’s disease
Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
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 and performed similarly to other analytical approaches, with the potential to improve with larger derivation groups. Compared to visual rating, SCA of FDG-PET relies on different sources of group variance to separate DLB from AD.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Spatial covariance analysis of FDG-PET and HMPAO-SPECT for the differential diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer’s disease
- Date Crossref
- 28/10/2021
- Éditeur
- openRxiv
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.