Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
The specific binding ratio (SBR) is an objective indicator of N-ω-fluoropropyl-2β-carbomethoxy-3β-(4-[123I] iodophenyl) nortropane ([123I]FP-CIT) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) that could be used for the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease and Lewy body dementia. One of the issues of the SBR analysis is that the setting position of the volume of interest (VOI) may contain cerebral ventricles and cerebral grooves. These areas may become prominent during the brain atrophy analysis; however, this phenomenon has not been evaluated enough. This study thus used Monte Carlo simulations to examine the effect of brain atrophy on the SBR analysis. The brain atrophy model (BAM) used to simulate the three stages of brain atrophy was made using a morphological operation. Brain atrophy levels were defined in the descending order from 1 to 3, with Level 3 indicating to the most severe damage. Projection data were created based on BAM, and the SPECT reconstruction was performed. The ratio of the striatal to background region accumulation was set to a rate of 8:1, 6:1, and 4:1. The striatal and the reference VOI mean value were decreased as brain atrophy progressed. Additionally, the Bolt's analysis methods revealed that the reference VOI value was more affected by brain atrophy than the striatal VOI value. Finally, the calculated SBR value was overestimated as brain atrophy progressed, and a similar trend was observed when the ratios of the striatal to background region accumulation were changed. This study thus suggests that the SBR can be overestimated in cases of advanced brain atrophy.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.