ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Impact of adjunctive quantitative analysis on visual interpretation of amyloid PET: a multiple tracer, multicentre study.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVisual amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) interpretation is standard for detecting cerebral amyloid-β but is limited by subjectivity, inter-reader variability, and tracer heterogeneity. We evaluated the impact of adjunctive quantitative analysis in real-world clinical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective multicentre study included patients who underwent amyloid PET with F-18 florbetaben (FBB), flutemetamol (FMM), or florapronol (FPN) and T1-weighted brain MRI between 2015 and 2022. Scans were interpreted by visual assessment alone and then with adjunctive quantitative standardized uptake value ratio and Centiloid analysis. Primary outcomes were changes in reader confidence and inter-reader agreement; agreement metrics with an expert consensus adjudication (with quantitative and clinical information unblinded only when initial visual reads were discordant) were assessed as a secondary endpoint.
resultsIn 950 patients, adjunctive quantitative analysis significantly increased reader confidence, with high-confidence interpretations rising from 76.3% to 83.7% (p < 0.001). Inter-reader agreement also improved significantly (κ: 0.746 to 0.826, p < 0.001, respectively). Accuracy for the expert consensus adjudication increased modestly (0.930 to 0.940, p = 0.003), driven by higher specificity (0.915 to 0.944, p < 0.001) with a slight reduction in sensitivity (0.943 to 0.937, p = 0.52).
conclusionAdjunctive quantitative analysis increases reader confidence and improves inter-reader agreement in real-world amyloid PET interpretation. Although agreement and diagnostic metrics with expert consensus adjudication also increased, this should not be interpreted as independent diagnostic validation. Overall, quantitative metrics appear most valuable as an adjunct to enhance consistency, particularly in equivocal cases. KEY POINTS: Question Does the use of adjunctive quantitative analysis significantly increase the diagnostic confidence of readers compared to visual interpretation alone? Findings Adjunctive quantitative support significantly increased reader confidence and inter-reader agreement. Clinical relevance Quantitative tools, when used as adjuncts to expert visual interpretation and supported by automated workflows, can improve consistency and confidence in amyloid PET reading, particularly in borderline cases, thereby supporting clinical decision-making in routine practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42310039What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.