SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Multicenter development and validation of a probability-based model to diagnose Lewy body disease using ¹²³I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine.

Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging · 2026-01-14

DOI: 10.1007/s00259-025-07706-0PMID: 41533061

Open accessresearch-article; Validation Study; Multicenter Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

PurposeWe previously proposed that a probability-based sympathetic 123I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine (mIBG) index (SMILe) could distinguish the presence or absence of Lewy body disease (LBD) based on findings at a single center. However, whether the model would be useful in the real world remained uncertain. Therefore, we updated and evaluated its performance at five Japanese and three European institutions.MethodsWe compared data from 967 patients with suspected LBD with 62 controls from a normal database (NDB). Of 815 patients with guideline-based diagnoses, 483 had LBD (Parkinson disease [PD] or dementia with Lewy bodies [DLB]) and 332 did not have LBD. Heart-to-mediastinum (H/M) ratios were standardized using a phantom-based method. Logistic regression models included early and late H/M ratios, age, sex, and comorbidities. We assessed diagnostic performance using ROC analysis and cross-validation.ResultsThe updated model discriminated LBD from other diseases (AUC for early and late H/M, 0.880 0.899, respectively). Age correction of H/M ratios based on the NDB did not improve accuracy. Median early H/M ratios [SMILe probability] were 3.09 [12.8%] for NDB, 2.57 [37.5%] for Alzheimer disease, 1.76 [84.7%] for PD, and 1.62 [89.0%] for DLB, with significantly lower H/M ratios and higher probabilities in PD and DLB compared with controls (p ConclusionThe probability-based 123I-mIBG model reliably differentiated LBD from other diseases. Standardization among sites supports global applicability and reflects real-world clinical practice.

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.