↓ Skip to main content

Brain uptake and safety of Flutemetamol F 18 injection in Japanese subjects with probable Alzheimer’s disease, subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment and healthy volunteers

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Nuclear Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 635)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Brain uptake and safety of Flutemetamol F 18 injection in Japanese subjects with probable Alzheimer’s disease, subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment and healthy volunteers
Published in
Annals of Nuclear Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12149-017-1154-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takami Miki, Hiroyuki Shimada, Jae-Seung Kim, Yasuji Yamamoto, Masakazu Sugino, Hisatomo Kowa, Kerstin Heurling, Michelle Zanette, Paul F. Sherwin, Michio Senda

Abstract

This Phase 2 study assessed the performance of positron emission tomography (PET) brain images made with Flutemetamol F 18 Injection in detecting β-amyloid neuritic plaques in Japanese subjects. Seventy subjects (25 with probable Alzheimer's disease (pAD), 20 with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and 25 cognitively normal healthy volunteers[HVs]) underwent PET brain imaging after intravenous Flutemetamol F 18 Injection (185 MBq). Images were interpreted as normal or abnormal for neuritic plaque density by each of five non-Japanese and five Japanese readers who were blinded to clinical data. The primary efficacy analysis (based on HV and pAD data) was the agreement of the non-Japanese readers' image interpretations with the clinical diagnosis, resulting in estimates of positive percent agreement (PPA; based on AD subjects; similar to sensitivity) and negative percent agreement (NPA; based on HVs; similar to specificity). Secondary analyses included PPA and NPA for the Japanese readers; inter-reader agreement (IRA); intra-reader reproducibility (IRR); quantitative image interpretations (standardized uptake value ratios [SUVRs]) by diagnostic subgroup; test-retest variability in five pAD subjects; and safety. PPA was 92% for all non-Japanese readers and ranged from 88 to 92% for the Japanese readers. NPA ranged from 96 to 100% for both the non-Japanese readers and the Japanese readers. The majority image interpretations (the interpretations made independently by ≥3 of 5 readers) resulted in PPA values of 92 and 92% and NPA values of 100 and 96% for the non-Japanese and Japanese readers, respectively. IRA and IRR were strong. Composite SUVR values (mean of multiple regional values) allowed clear differentiation between pAD subjects and HVs. Test-retest variability ranged from 1.14 to 2.27%, and test-retest agreement of the blinded visual interpretations was 100% for all readers. Flutemetamol F 18 Injection was generally well tolerated. The detection of brain neuritic plaques in Japanese subjects using [(18)F]Flutemetamol PET images gave results highly consistent with clinical diagnosis, with non-Japanese and Japanese readers giving similar results. Inter-reader agreement and intra-reader reproducibility were high for both sets of readers. Visual delineation of abnormal and normal scans was corroborated by quantitative assessment, with low test-retest variability. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT02813070.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Master 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 20 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 33%
Neuroscience 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 March 2017.
All research outputs
#2,963,288
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Nuclear Medicine
#13
of 635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,379
of 420,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Nuclear Medicine
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 635 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 420,438 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them