SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Impact of the cerebrospinal fluid-mask algorithm on the diagnostic performance of <sup>123</sup>I-Ioflupane SPECT: an investigation of parkinsonian syndromes.

EJNMMI Res · 2019-09-03

DOI: 10.1186/s13550-019-0558-xPMID: 31482376

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundA cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-mask algorithm has been developed to reduce the adverse influence of CSF-low-counts on the diagnostic utility of the specific binding ratio (SBR) index calculated with Southampton method. We assessed the effect of the CSF-mask algorithm on the diagnostic performance of the SBR index for parkinsonian syndromes (PS), including Parkinson's disease, and the influence of cerebral ventricle dilatation on the CSF-mask algorithm.MethodsWe enrolled 163 and 158 patients with and without PS, respectively. Both the conventional SBR (non-CSF-mask) and SBR corrected with the CSF-mask algorithm (CSF-mask) were calculated from 123I-Ioflupane single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images of these patients. We compared the diagnostic performance of the corresponding indices and evaluated whether the effect of the CSF-mask algorithm varied according to the extent of ventricle dilatation, as assessed with the Evans index (EI). A receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used for statistical analyses.ResultsROC analyses demonstrated that the CSF-mask algorithm performed better than the non-CSF-mask (no correction, area under the curve [AUC] = 0.917 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.887-0.947] vs. 0.895 [95% CI 0.861-0.929], p ConclusionThe CSF-mask algorithm improved the performance of the SBR index in informing the diagnosis of PS, especially in cases with ventricle dilatation.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.