↓ Skip to main content

Automated Online Quantification Method for 18F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography/CT Improves Detection of the Epileptogenic Zone in Patients with Pharmacoresistant Epilepsy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Automated Online Quantification Method for 18F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography/CT Improves Detection of the Epileptogenic Zone in Patients with Pharmacoresistant Epilepsy
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00453
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanessa Cristina Mendes Coelho, Marcia E. Morita, Barbara J. Amorim, Celso Darío Ramos, Clarissa L. Yasuda, Helder Tedeschi, Enrico Ghizoni, Fernando Cendes

Abstract

To assess the validity of an online method to quantitatively evaluate cerebral hypometabolism in patients with pharmacoresistant focal epilepsy as a complement to the visual analysis of the (18)F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET)/CT exam. A total of 39 patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy and probable focal cortical dysplasia [22 patients with frontal lobe epilepsy (FLE) and 17 with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE)] underwent a presurgical evaluation including EEG, video-EEG, MRI, and (18)F-FDG PET/CT. We conducted the automated quantification of their (18)F-FDG PET/CT data and compared the results with those of the visual-PET analysis conducted by experienced nuclear medicine physicians. For each patient group, we calculated Cohen's Kappa coefficient for the visual and quantitative analyses, as well as each method's sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. For the TLE group, both the visual and quantitative analyses showed high agreement. Thus, although the quantitative analysis could be used as a complement, the visual analysis on its own was consistent and precise. For the FLE group, on the other hand, the visual analysis categorized almost half of the cases as normal, revealing very low agreement. For those patients, the quantitative analysis proved critical to identify the focal hypometabolism characteristic of the epileptogenic zone. Our results suggest that the quantitative analysis of (18)F-FDG PET/CT data is critical for patients with extratemporal epilepsies, and especially those with subtle MRI findings. Furthermore, it can easily be used during the routine clinical evaluation of (18)F-FDG PET/CT exams. Our results show that quantification of (18)F-FDG PET is an informative complementary method that can be added to the routine visual evaluation of patients with subtle lesions, particularly those in the frontal lobes.

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 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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Researcher 8 14%
Other 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 28%
Neuroscience 10 17%
Engineering 4 7%
Unspecified 3 5%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 October 2019.
All research outputs
#14,952,935
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,160
of 11,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,243
of 316,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#99
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.