| Title |
Inter-rater variability of visual interpretation and comparison with quantitative evaluation of 11C-PiB PET amyloid images of the Japanese Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (J-ADNI) multicenter study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00259-016-3591-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tomohiko Yamane, Kenji Ishii, Muneyuki Sakata, Yasuhiko Ikari, Tomoyuki Nishio, Kazunari Ishii, Takashi Kato, Kengo Ito, Michio Senda, J-ADNI Study Group |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to assess the inter-rater variability of the visual interpretation of (11)C-PiB PET images regarding the positivity/negativity of amyloid deposition that were obtained in a multicenter clinical research project, Japanese Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (J-ADNI). The results of visual interpretation were also compared with a semi-automatic quantitative analysis using mean cortical standardized uptake value ratio to the cerebellar cortex (mcSUVR). A total of 162 (11)C-PiB PET scans, including 45 mild Alzheimer's disease, 60 mild cognitive impairment, and 57 normal cognitive control cases that had been acquired as J-ADNI baseline scans were analyzed. Based on visual interpretation by three independent raters followed by consensus read, each case was classified into positive, equivocal, and negative deposition (ternary criteria) and further dichotomized by merging the former two (binary criteria). Complete agreement of visual interpretation by the three raters was observed for 91.3% of the cases (Cohen κ = 0.88 on average) in ternary criteria and for 92.3% (κ = 0.89) in binary criteria. Cases that were interpreted as visually positive in the consensus read showed significantly higher mcSUVR than those visually negative (2.21 ± 0.37 vs. 1.27 ± 0.09, p < 0.001), and positive or negative decision by visual interpretation was dichotomized by a cut-off value of mcSUVR = 1.5. Significant positive/negative associations were observed between mcSUVR and the number of raters who evaluated as positive (ρ = 0.87, p < 0.0001) and negative (ρ = -0.85, p < 0.0001) interpretation. Cases of disagreement among raters showed generally low mcSUVR. Inter-rater agreement was almost perfect in (11)C-PiB PET scans. Positive or negative decision by visual interpretation was dichotomized by a cut-off value of mcSUVR = 1.5. As some cases of disagreement among raters tended to show low mcSUVR, referring to quantitative method may facilitate correct diagnosis when evaluating images of low amyloid deposition. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 19% |
| Psychology | 6 | 10% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2016.
All research outputs
#4,412,365
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#476
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,033
of 424,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#8
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.