MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3110745547 · doi:10.1002/alz.046375

Utility of ioflupane‐SPECT with multimodal imaging in dementia with Lewy bodies

2020· article· en· W3110745547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Toji Miyagawa, Scott A. Przybelski, Daniela D. Maltais, Hoon‐Ki Min, Lennon Jordan, Timothy G. Lesnick, Qin Chen, Jonathan Graff‐Radford, David T. Jones, Rodolfo Savica, David S. Knopman, Ronald C. Petersen, Julie A. Fields, Mary M. Machulda, Leah K. Forsberg, Laura A. Allen, Joseph E. Parisi, Melissa E. Murray, Tanis J. Ferman, Dennis W. Dickson, Bradley F. Boeve, Kejal Kantarci, Val J. Lowe

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementia with Lewy bodiesPutamenDementiaNuclear medicineMedicineSpect imagingPsychologyRadiologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Multiple imaging modalities have been individually shown to be useful in diagnosing Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB). Reduced striatonigral uptake on ioflupane‐SPECT reflects striatonigral dopamine dysfunction observed in DLB, while other imaging modalities assess different aspects of DLB, which potentially work complementarily when used together. We assessed how well ioflupane‐SPECT differentiates DLB from Alzheimer’s Disease Dementia (ADem) and whether adding another imaging modality to ioflupane‐SPECT would provide additional value. Method Ioflupane‐SPECT, MRI, FDG‐PET, and PiB‐PET were assessed on 35 DLB and 14 ADem patients (including 12 patients with eventual autopsy confirmation). Striatonigral dopamine transporter uptake was evaluated semi‐quantitatively with ioflupane‐SPECT using DaTQUANT software (GE Healthcare) to calculate z‐scores of putamen uptake. Hippocampal volume was calculated with structural MRI, cingulate island sign (CIS) ratio with FDG‐PET, and global cortical PiB retention with PiB‐PET. Result Lower DaTQUANT z‐scores of putamen were observed in DLB patients compared to ADem patients (c‐statistic 0.896, p<0.001). Ioflupane‐SPECT showed higher c‐statistic in differentiating DLB from ADem than hippocampal volume on MRI (c‐statistic 0.718, p=0.034), CIS on FDG‐PET (c‐statistic 0.869, p=0.003), or global cortical PiB retention on PiB‐PET (c‐statistic 0.869, p=0.002), but some overlap between two diagnostic groups was still observed with the single imaging modality. Among these imaging modalities, ioflupane‐SPECT was the only modality correlated with the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III, while only PiB‐PET correlated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test score. Adding another imaging modality to ioflupane‐SPECT enhanced c‐statistics (+MRI c‐statistic 0.931, p<0.001; +FDG‐PET c‐statistic 0.957, p=0.005; +PiB‐PET c‐statistic 0.955, p=0.007), and ioflupane‐SPECT in combination with both FDG‐PET and PiB‐PET showed the highest c‐statistic of 0.974 (p=0.043). Conclusion Ioflupane‐SPECT is an excellent imaging modality to identify DLB by detecting striatonigral dopamine dysfunction which is strongly associated with motor impairment in DLB. Correlative neuroimaging with MRI, FDG‐PET, or PiB‐PET may add small incremental value in differentiation of DLB and ADem. Supported by NIH grants (AG016574, AG006786, AG015866, NS100620, AG062677), grant from GE Healthcare, the Mayo Clinic Dorothy and Harry T. Mangurian Jr. Lewy Body Dementia Program, the Deal Family Foundation, and the Little Family Foundation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→