ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Prognostic value of Amyloid PET in Real-World Amnestic MCI: Influence of reader experience and interpretation method.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study assessed the prognostic value and inter-/intra-observer reliability of three amyloid PET interpretation methods-conventional visual reading, assisted visual interpretation and standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR)-based quantification-for predicting conversion to Alzheimer's disease (AD).
methodsThis retrospective longitudinal study included 145 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment who underwent amyloid PET and were followed for up to 8 years at a single memory clinic. Two certified nuclear medicine physicians performed structured visual reads and assisted visual interpretations. Semiquantitative SUVR thresholds validated in prior studies were applied as a third method. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa (κ). Cox regression models estimated the association of conversion to AD in PET-positive versus PET-negative patients for each method, adjusting for age, sex and education.
resultsInter-observer agreement was excellent for structured visual reading (κ = 0.877) and assisted visual interpretation (κ = 0.904). Intra-observer reliability was also high (κ = 0.891 for Reader 1; κ = 0.859 for Reader 2). Consensus agreement for the assisted method reached κ = 0.936. Amyloid PET positivity was strongly associated with progression to AD across all methods. Hazard ratios were highest for assisted visual interpretation (HR = 3.23, 95% CI 1.94-5.38, p < 0.0001), followed by SUVR quantification (HR = 2.19, 95% CI 1.55-3.10, p < 0.0001) and structured visual reading (HR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.10-3.06, p = 0.02).
conclusionAmyloid PET positivity consistently predicted conversion to AD regardless of interpretation method. Assisted visual and semiquantitative approaches showed numerically higher prognostic discrimination, while expert structured visual reading remained clinically reliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42661000What 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.