Table Info

Table 3.

Mean z-scores and 95% CIs quantifying the population template’s deviation from MIMneuro^®’s controls for every region in MIMneuro^®’s proprietary atlas

Region	Mean [95% CI]	Region	Mean [95% CI]	Region	Mean [95% CI]	Region	Mean [95% CI]
Amygdala (L)	−0.28 [−0.34, −0.22]	Inf. frontal gyrus (L)	−0.43 [−0.45, −0.41]	Middle orbital gyrus (L)	−0.09 [−0.11, −0.07]	Retrosplenial area (L)	0.09 [0.02, 0.16]
Amygdala (R)	−0.84 [−0.93, −0.75]	Inf. frontal gyrus (R)	−0.45 [−0.47, −0.43]	Middle orbital gyrus (R)	−0.31 [−0.37, −0.25]	Retrosplenial area (R)	−0.06 [−0.10, −0.02]
Angular gyrus (L)	0.33 [0.31, 0.35]	Inf. frontal gyrus, pars opercularis (L)	−0.57 [−0.61, −0.52]	Middle temporal gyrus (L)	0.49 [0.46, 0.52]	Rolandic operculum (L)	−0.37 [−0.40, −0.34]
Angular gyrus (R)	0.13 [0.11, 0.15]	Inf. frontal gyrus, pars opercularis (R)	−0.59 [−0.62, −0.56]	Middle temporal gyrus (R)	0.46 [0.43, 0.49]	Rolandic operculum (R)	−0.55 [−0.59, −0.51]
Anterior cingulate gyrus (L)	0.15 [0.13, 0.17]	Inf. frontal gyrus, pars orbitalis (L)	−0.37 [−0.42, −0.32]	Nucleus accumbens (L)	−0.04 [−0.07, −0.01]	Subcallosal area (L)	−0.12 [−0.20, −0.04]
Anterior cingulate gyrus (R)	0.22 [0.19, 0.25]	Inf. frontal gyrus, pars orbitalis (R)	−0.25 [−0.31, −0.19]	Nucleus accumbens (R)	−0.33 [−0.43, −0.23]	Subcallosal area (R)	−0.13 [−0.21, −0.05]
Anterior orbital gyrus (L)	−0.03 [−0.05, −0.01]	Inf. frontal gyrus, pars triangularis (L)	−0.32 [−0.35, −0.29]	Occipital lobe (L)	0.56 [0.54, 0.58]	Sup. cerebellar peduncle (L)	0.18 [0.09, 0.27]
Anterior orbital gyrus (R)	−0.12 [−0.20, −0.04]	Inf. frontal gyrus, pars triangularis (R)	−0.41 [−0.45, −0.37]	Occipital lobe (R)	0.32 [0.31, 0.33]	Sup. cerebellar peduncle (R)	0.22 [0.15, 0.29]
Basis pontis	0.06 [0.05, 0.07]	Inf. medial frontal gyrus (L)	−0.51 [−0.55, −0.47]	Olfactory cortex (L)	−0.04 [−0.06, −0.02]	Sup. frontal gyrus (L)	0.26 [0.24, 0.28]
Brain stem	0.07 [0.06, 0.08]	Inf. medial frontal gyrus (R)	−0.86 [−0.91, −0.81]	Olfactory cortex (R)	−0.42 [−0.57, −0.27]	Sup. frontal gyrus (R)	0.26 [0.24, 0.28]
Caudate (L)	−0.10 [−0.13, −0.07]	Inf. occipital gyrus (L)	0.48 [0.43, 0.53]	Orbitofrontal region (L)	−0.18 [−0.29, −0.16]	Sup. medial frontal gyrus (L)	−0.11 [−0.13, −0.09]
Caudate (R)	−0.15 [−0.20, −0.10]	Inf. occipital gyrus (R)	0.28 [0.24, 0.32]	Orbitofrontal region (R)	−0.41 [−0.45, −0.37]	Sup. medial frontal gyrus (R)	−0.13 [−0.15, −0.11]
Cerebellar hemisphere (L)	0.59 [0.57, 0.61]	Inf. temporal gyrus (L)	0.63 [0.59, 0.67]	Paracentral lobule (L)	−0.17 [−0.19, −0.15]	Sup. occipital gyrus (L)	0.53 [0.50, 0.56]
Cerebellar hemisphere (R)	0.29 [0.28, 0.30]	Inf. temporal gyrus (R)	0.11 [0.10, 0.12]	Paracentral lobule (R)	−0.12 [−0.14, −0.10]	Sup. occipital gyrus (R)	0.51 [0.48, 0.54]
Cerebellar vermis	0.51 [0.48, 0.54]	Insula (L)	−0.35 [−0.38, −0.32]	Parahippocampal gyrus (L)	0.20 [0.16, 0.24]	Sup. parietal lobule (L)	0.24 [0.22, 0.26]
Cerebellum	0.45 [0.44, 0.46]	Insula (R)	−0.83 [−0.87, −0.79]	Parahippocampal gyrus (R)	−0.20 [−0.23, −0.17]	Sup. parietal lobule (R)	0.12 [0.10, 0.14]
Cingulate gyrus (L)	0.09 [0.07, 0.11]	Lateral orbital gyrus (L)	−0.12 [−0.15, −0.09]	Parietal lobe (L)	0.15 [0.14, 0.16]	Sup. temporal gyrus (L)	0.34 [0.30, 0.38]
Cingulate gyrus (R)	0.08 [0.06, 0.10]	Lateral orbital gyrus (R)	−0.35 [−0.42, −0.28]	Parietal lobe (R)	−0.03 [−0.04, −0.02]	Sup. temporal gyrus (R)	0.13 [0.09, 0.17]
Cuneus (L)	0.23 [0.20, 0.26]	Lateral temporal lobe (L)	0.44 [0.42, 0.46]	Pons	0.08 [0.07, 0.09]	Supplementary motor area (L)	−0.03 [−0.05, −0.01]
Cuneus (R)	0.2 [0.17, 0.23]	Lateral temporal lobe (R)	0.25 [0.23, 0.27]	Pontine tegmentum	0.14 [0.12, 0.16]	Supplementary motor area (R)	−0.01 [−0.02, 0.00]
Frontal lobe (L)	−0.02 [−0.03, −0.01]	Lingual gyrus (L)	0.65 [0.61, 0.69]	Postcentral gyrus (L)	0.18 [0.16, 0.20]	Supramarginal gyrus (L)	0.31 [0.29, 0.33]
Frontal lobe (R)	−0.08 [−0.09, −0.07]	Lingual gyrus (R)	0.13 [0.11, 0.15]	Postcentral gyrus (R)	−0.03 [−0.05, −0.01]	Supramarginal gyrus (R)	−0.05 [−0.08, −0.02]
Fusiform gyrus (L)	0.76 [0.73, 0.79]	Medial orbital gyrus (L)	−0.29 [−0.33, −0.25]	Posterior cingulate gyrus (L)	−0.01 [−0.03, 0.01]	Temporal lobe (L)	0.39 [0.37, 0.41]
Fusiform gyrus (R)	0.08 [0.07, 0.09]	Medial orbital gyrus (R)	−0.54 [−0.61, −0.47]	Posterior cingulate gyrus (R)	0.00 [−0.03, 0.03]	Temporal lobe (R)	0.10 [0.09, 0.11]
Globus pallidus (L)	0.04 [−0.01, 0.09]	Medial temporal lobe (L)	0.17 [0.14, 0.20]	Posterior orbital gyrus (L)	−0.17 [−0.20, −0.14]	Temporal operculum (L)	−0.57 [−0.62, −0.52]
Globus pallidus (R)	−0.3 [−0.35, −0.25]	Medial temporal lobe (R)	−0.28 [−0.31, −0.25]	Posterior orbital gyrus (R)	−0.59 [−0.68, −0.50]	Temporal operculum (R)	−0.57 [−0.63, −0.51]
Gyrus rectus (L)	−0.40 [−0.49, −0.31]	Medulla	0.11 [0.08, 0.14]	Precentral gyrus (L)	0.23 [0.20, 0.26]	Temporal pole (L)	−0.27 [−0.31, −0.23]
Gyrus rectus (R)	−0.46 [−0.56, −0.36]	Midbrain	0.04 [0.02, 0.06]	Precentral gyrus (R)	0.07 [0.04, 0.10]	Temporal pole (R)	−0.40 [−0.44, −0.36]
Heschl gyrus (L)	0.03 [−0.02, 0.08]	Middle cerebellar peduncle (L)	0.01 [0.00, 0.02]	Precuneus (L)	−0.21 [−0.23, −0.19]	Thalamus (L)	0.70 [0.66, 0.74]
Heschl gyrus (R)	−0.32 [−0.39, −0.25]	Middle cerebellar peduncle (R)	0.01 [0.00, 0.02]	Precuneus (R)	−0.23 [−0.25, −0.21]	Thalamus (R)	0.47 [0.43, 0.51]
Hippocampus (L)	0.11 [0.06, 0.16]	Middle frontal gyrus (L)	0.21 [0.19, 0.23]	Primary visual cortex (L)	0.42 [0.39, 0.45]	Whole brain	0.10 [0.10, 0.10]
Hippocampus (R)	−0.45 [−0.50, −0.40]	Middle frontal gyrus (R)	0.41 [0.39, 0.43]	Primary visual cortex (R)	0.35 [0.32, 0.38]
Inf. cerebellar peduncle (L)	0.11 [−0.10, 0.32]	Middle occipital gyrus (L)	0.72 [0.68, 0.76]	Putamen (L)	0.07 [0.05, 0.09]
Inf. cerebellar peduncle (R)	0.06 [−0.10, 0.22]	Middle occipital gyrus (R)	0.37 [0.35, 0.39]	Putamen (R)	−0.47 [−0.51, −0.43]

Supplementary materials

The supplementary materials for this article are available at:

https://www.explorationpub.com/uploads/Article/file/100122_sup_1.pdf.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank CereHealth Corp. for their donation of patient data and support of this study, and individuals Shane Quint, Laurie Haynie, Michaela Olson, Logan Langholz, and Christine Salva for their contributions to this work.

Author contributions

LMQ contributed to the conception and design of the study. CAR also contributed to its design. With some assistance from acknowledged individuals, LMQ processed all clinical and imaging data for the template and the cognitively impaired cohort. LMQ generated the template and performed all testing and statistical analysis. CAR performed all visual reads on the cognitively impaired cohort. LMQ wrote the first draft of the manuscript. CAR wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

Lindsay Quandt is an employee of CereHealth Corporation, the parent company of CereScan and CereMetrix Corporations. Cyrus Raji is an independent contractor for CereHealth Corporation.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the IntegReview Institutional Review Board, Certificate CHDB112019.

Consent to participate

The informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed for this manuscript are not publicly available because they are proprietary resources of CereHealth Corporation. Requests for access should be directed to Lindsay M. Quandt (LQuandt@ceremetrix.io).

Funding

Not applicable.

Copyright

References

Valotassiou V, Malamitsi J, Papatriantafyllou J, Dardiotis E, Tsougos I, Psimadas D, et al. SPECT and PET imaging in Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Nucl Med. 2018;32:583–93. [DOI] [PubMed]

Raji CA, Tarzwell R, Pavel D, Schneider H, Uszler M, Thornton J, et al. Clinical utility of SPECT neuroimaging in the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9:e91088. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Desikan R, Rafii M, Brewer J, Hess C. An expanded role for neuroimaging in the evaluation of memory impairment. Methodol Perspect Brain. 2013;34:2075–82. [DOI]

Catafau AM. Brain SPECT in clinical practice. Part I: perfusion. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:259–71. [PubMed]

American College of Radiology Committee on Practice Parameters and Technical Standards. ACR-SPR practice parameter for the performance of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) brain perfusion imaging, including brain death examinations. 2016 [cited 2018 Sep 5]. Available from: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/brainperf-spect.pdf?la=en

Patterson JC, Early TS, Martin A, Walker MZ, Russell JM, Villanueva-Meyer H. SPECT image analysis using statistical parametric mapping: comparison of technetium-99m-HMPAO and technetium-99m-ECD. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1721–5. [PubMed]

Bartenstein P, Minoshima S, Hirsch C, Buch K, Willoch F, Mösch D, et al. Quantitative assessment of cerebral blood flow in patients with Alzheimer’s disease by SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1095–101. [PubMed]

Ishii K, Kanda T, Uemura T, Miyamoto N, Yoshikawa T, Shimada K, et al. Computer-assisted diagnostic system for neurodegenerative dementia using brain SPECT and 3D-SSP. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:831–40. [DOI] [PubMed]

Van Laere KJ, Warwick J, Versijpt J, Goethals I, Audenaert K, Van Heerden B, et al. Analysis of clinical brain SPECT data based on anatomic standardization and reference to normal data: an ROC-based comparison of visual, semiquantitative, and voxel-based methods. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:458–69. [PubMed]

10.

Waragai M, Yamada T, Matsuda H. Evaluation of brain perfusion SPECT using an easy Z-score imaging system (eZIS) as an adjunct to early-diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. J Neurol Sci. 2007;260:57–64. [DOI] [PubMed]

11.

Imabayashi E, Matsuda H, Asada T, Ohnishi T, Sakamoto S, Nakano S, et al. Superiority of 3-dimensional stereotactic surface projection analysis over visual inspection in discrimination of patients with very early Alzheimer’s disease from controls using brain perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1450–7. [PubMed]

12.

Radau PE, Slomka PJ, Julin P, Svensson L, Wahlund LO. Evaluation of linear registration algorithms for brain SPECT and the errors due to hypoperfusion lesions. Med Phys. 2001;28:1660–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

13.

MIM Software Inc. MIMneuro^®. Version 6.7.12 [software]. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 5]. Available from: https://www.mimsoftware.com/nuclear_medicine/mim_neuro

14.

Kessler LG, Barnhart HX, Buckler AJ, Choudhury KR, Kondratovich MV, Toledano A, et al. The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015;24:9–26. [DOI] [PubMed]

15.

Jha AK, Caffo B, Frey EC. A no-gold-standard technique for objective assessment of quantitative nuclear-medicine imaging methods. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:2780–800. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

16.

Jha AK, Song N, Caffo B, Frey EC. Objective evaluation of reconstruction methods for quantitative SPECT imaging in the absence of ground truth. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2015;9416:94161K. [DOI]

17.

Smith ND, Holmes RB, Soleimani M, Evans MJ, Cade SC, Mitchell CN. Towards adapting a normal patient database for SPECT brain perfusion imaging. Inverse Probl. 2012;28:065001. [DOI]

18.

Radiation and your patient: a guide for medical practitioners. Ann ICRP. 2001;31:5–31. [PubMed]

19.

Barnden LR, Behin-Ain S, Kwiatek R, Casse R, Yelland L. Age related preservation and loss in optimized brain SPECT. Nucl Med Commun. 2005;26:497–503. [DOI] [PubMed]

20.

Segami Corporation. Oasis. Version 1.9.4.9 [software]. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 5]. Available from: https://segamicorp.com

21.

HERMES Medical Solutions. BRASS^TM. Version 3.6 [software]. 2013 [cited 2018 Sep 5]. Available from: https://www.hermesmedical.com

22.

Yeo JM, Lim X, Khan Z, Pal S. Systematic review of the diagnostic utility of SPECT imaging in dementia. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2013;263:539–52. [DOI] [PubMed]

23.

Swan A, Waddell B, Holloway G, Bak T, Colville S, Khan Z, et al. The diagnostic utility of 99mTc-HMPAO SPECT imaging: a retrospective case series from a tertiary referral early-onset cognitive disorders clinic. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2015;39:186–93. [DOI] [PubMed]

24.

Prosser AMJ, Tossici-Bolt L, Kipps CM. The impact of regional 99mTc-HMPAO single-photon-emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging on clinician diagnostic confidence in a mixed cognitive impairment sample. Clin Radiol. 2020;75:714.e7–714.e14. [DOI]

25.

Koyama M, Kawashima R, Ito H, Ono S, Sato K, Goto R, et al. SPECT imaging of normal subjects with technetium-99m-HMPAO and technetium-99m-ECD. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:587–92. [PubMed]

26.

Chang LT. A method for attenuation correction in radionuclide computed tomography. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 1978;25:638–43. [DOI]

27.

Matsumoto N, Berman DS, Kavanagh PB, Gerlach J, Hayes SW, Lewin HC, et al. Quantitative assessment of motion artifacts and validation of a new motion-correction program for myocardial perfusion SPECT. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:687–94. [PubMed]

28.

Otsu N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histogram. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1979;9:62–6.

29.

Holmes CJ, Hoge R, Collins L, Woods R, Toga AW, Evans AC. Enhancement of MR images using registration for signal averaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22:324–33. [DOI] [PubMed]

30.

Arndt S, Cizadlo T, O’Leary D, Gold S, Andreasen NC. Normalizing counts and cerebral blood flow intensity in functional imaging studies of the human brain. Neuroimage. 1996;3:175–84. [DOI] [PubMed]

31.

Obuchowski NA, Reeves AP, Huang EP, Wang XF, Buckler AJ, Kim HJ, et al.; Algorithm Comparison Working Group. Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for computer algorithm comparisons. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015;24:68–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

32.

Piper JW, Corp M. Quantitative comparison of spatial normalization algorithms for 3D PET brain scans. J Nucl Med. 2007;48 Suppl 2:403.

33.

Bonferroni CE. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita. Pubbl del R Ist Super di Sci Econ e Commer di Firenze. 1936;8:3–62. [DOI]

34.

Devore JL. Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. 8th ed. Boston (MA): Cengage Learning; 2012.

35.

Rolls ET, Joliot M, Tzourio-Mazoyer N. Implementation of a new parcellation of the orbitofrontal cortex in the automated anatomical labeling atlas. Neuroimage. 2015;122:1–5. [DOI] [PubMed]

36.

Lin L, Hedayat AS, Sinha B, Yang M. Statistical methods in assessing agreement: models, issues, and tools. J Am Stat Assoc. 2002;97:257–70. [DOI]

37.

Barnhart HX, Haber MJ, Lin LI. An overview on assessing agreement with continuous measurements. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:529–69. [DOI] [PubMed]

38.

Lin L. Total deviation index for measuring individual agreement with applications in laboratory performance and bioequivalence. Stat Med. 2000;19:255–70. [DOI] [PubMed]

39.

Choudhary PK, Nagaraja HN. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies-a review. In: Balakrishnan N, Nagaraja HN, Kannan N, editors. Advances in ranking and selection, multiple comparisons, and reliability. Boston (MA): Birkhäuser; 2005. pp. 215–44.

40.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135–60. [DOI] [PubMed]

41.

Krippendorff KH. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc.; 2004.

42.

Hayes AF, Krippendorff K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas. 2007;1:77–89. [DOI]

43.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. 1977;33:159–74. [DOI]

44.

Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

45.

Chhapola V, Kanwal SK, Brar R. Reporting standards for Bland-Altman agreement analysis in laboratory research: a cross-sectional survey of current practice. Ann Clin Biochem. 2015;52:382–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

46.

Ludbrook J. Confidence in Altman-Bland plots: a critical review of the method of differences. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2010;37:143–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

47.

Lobaugh NJ, Caldwell CB, Black SE, Leibovitch FS, Swartz RH. Three brain SPECT region-of-interest templates in elderly people: normative values, hemispheric asymmetries, and a comparison of single-and multihead cameras. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:45–56. [PubMed]

48.

Ito H, Inoue K, Goto R, Kinomura S, Taki Y, Okada K, et al. Database of normal human cerebral blood flow measured by SPECT: I. Comparison between I-123-IMP, Tc-99m-HMPAO, and Tc-99m-ECD as referred with O-15 labeled water PET and voxel-based morphometry. Ann Nucl Med. 2006;20:131–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

49.

Brinkmann BH, Jones DT, Stead M, Kazemi N, O’Brien TJ, So EL, et al. Statistical parametric mapping demonstrates asymmetric uptake with Tc-99m ECD and Tc-99m HMPAO SPECT in normal brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2012;32:190–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

50.

Yamamoto H, Arimura S, Nakanishi A, Shimo Y, Motoi Y, Ishiguro K, et al. Age-related effects and gender differences in Japanese healthy controls for [123 I] FP-CIT SPECT. Ann Nucl Med. 2017;31:407–12. [DOI] [PubMed]

51.

Van Laere KJ, Dierckx RA. Brain perfusion SPECT: age- and sex-related effects correlated with voxel-based morphometric findings in healthy adults. Radiology. 2001;221:810–7. [DOI] [PubMed]

52.

Goto R, Kawashima R, Ito H, Koyama M, Sato K, Ono S, et al. A comparison of Tc-99m HMPAO brain SPECT images of young and aged normal individuals. Ann Nucl Med. 1998;12:333–9. [DOI] [PubMed]

53.

Pagani M, Salmaso D, Jonsson C, Hatherly R, Jacobsson H, Larsson SA, et al. Regional cerebral blood flow as assessed by principal component analysis and 99mTc-HMPAO SPET in healthy subjects at rest: normal distribution and effect of age and gender. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:67–75. [DOI] [PubMed]

54.

Schiepers C, Verbruggen A, Casaer P, Roo M De. Normal brain perfusion pattern of technetium-99methylcysteinate dimer in children. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:1115–20. [PubMed]

55.

Morbelli S, Rodriguez G, Mignone A, Altrinetti V, Brugnolo A, Piccardo A, et al. The need of appropriate brain SPECT templates for SPM comparisons. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;52:89–98. [PubMed]

56.

Yang BH, Wang SJ, Chou YH, Su TP, Chen JC. The effect of templates on 99mTc-ECD SPECT healthy brain perfusion analysis using statistical parametric mapping. Biomed Eng-Appl Basis Commun. 2006;18:296–304. [DOI]

57.

Matsuda H, Mizumura S, Soma T, Takemura N. Conversion of brain SPECT images between different collimators and reconstruction processes for analysis using statistical parametric mapping. Nucl Med Commun. 2004;25:67–74. [DOI] [PubMed]

58.

Matsuda H, Murata M, Mukai Y, Sako K, Ono H, Toyama H, et al. Japanese multicenter database of healthy controls for [123 I] FP-CIT SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1405–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

59.

Van Laere K, Koole M, Versijpt J, Vandenberghe S, Brans B, D’Asseler Y, et al. Transfer of normal 99m Tc-ECD brain SPET databases between different gamma cameras. Eur J Nucl Med Mol. 2001;28:435–49. [DOI]

60.

Matsuda H, Mizumura S, Nagao T, Ota T, Iizuka T, Nemoto K, et al. An easy Z-score imaging system for discrimination between very early Alzheimer’s disease and controls using brain perfusion SPECT in a multicentre study. Nucl Med Commun. 2007;28:199–205. [DOI] [PubMed]

61.

Stockbridge HL, Lewis D, Eisenberg B, Lee M, Schacher S, van Belle G, et al. Brain SPECT: a controlled, blinded assessment of intra-reader and inter-reader agreement. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23:537–44. [DOI] [PubMed]

62.

Hellman RS, Tikofsky RS, Heertum Van R, Coade G, Carretta R, Hoffmann RG. A multi-institutional study of interobserver agreement in the evaluation of dementia with rCBF/SPET technetium-99m exametazime (HMPAO). Eur J Nucl Med. 1994;21:306–13. [PubMed]

63.

Pasquier F, Lavenu I, Lebert F, Jacob B, Steinling M, Petit H. The use of SPECT in a multidisciplinary memory clinic. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 1997;8:85–91. [DOI] [PubMed]

64.

Doran M, Vinjamuri S, Collins J, Parker D, Larner AJ. Single-photon emission computed tomography perfusion imaging in the differential diagnosis of dementia: a retrospective regional audit. Int J Clin Pract. 2005;59:496–500. [DOI] [PubMed]

65.

Barnes A, Lusman D, Patterson J, Brown D, Wyper D. The use of Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM96) as a decision aid in the differential diagnosis of dementia using 99mTc-HMPAO SPECT. Behav Neurol. 2000;12:77–86. [DOI] [PubMed]

66.

Jagust W, Thisted R, Devous MD Sr, Van Heertum R, Mayberg H, Jobst K, et al. SPECT perfusion imaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: a clinical-pathologic study. Neurology. 2001;56:950–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

67.

Nitrini R, Buchpiguel CA, Caramelli P, Bahia VS, Mathias SC, Nascimento CM, et al. SPECT in Alzheimer’s disease: features associated with bilateral parietotemporal hypoperfusion. Acta Neurol Scand. 2000;101:172–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

68.

Cappa A, Calcagni ML, Villa G, Giordano A, Marra C, De Rossi G, et al. Brain perfusion abnormalities in Alzheimer’s disease: comparison between patients with focal temporal lobe dysfunction and patients with diffuse cognitive impairment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;70:22–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

69.

Nieto JCR. Frontotemporal dementia: clinical, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging description. Colomb Med (Cali). 2014;45:122–6. [PubMed] [PMC]

70.

McNeill R, Sare GM, Manoharan M, Testa HJ, Mann DMA, Neary D, et al. Accuracy of SPECT in differentiating frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:350–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

71.

Bigler ED, Maxwell WL. Neuropathology of mild traumatic brain injury: relationship to neuroimaging findings. Brain Imaging Behav. 2012;6:108–36. [DOI] [PubMed]

72.

Abu-Judeh HH, Parker R, Aleksic S, Singh ML, Naddaf S, Atay S, et al. SPECT brain perfusion findings in mild or moderate traumatic brain injury. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2000;3:5–11. [PubMed]