English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose  The PET radioligand (R)-[ 11 C]PK11195 is used to quantify the 18-kDa translocator protein (TSPO), a marker for glial activation. Since there is no brain region devoid of TSPO, an arterial input function (AIF) is ideally required for quantification of binding. However, obtaining an AIF is experimentally demanding, is sometimes uncomfortable for participants, and can introduce additional measurement error during quantification. The objective of this study was to perform an evaluation of the test-retest reliability and convergent validity of techniques used for quantifying (R)-[ 11 C]PK11195 binding without an AIF in clinical studies.    Methods  Data from six healthy individuals who participated in two PET examinations, 6 weeks apart, were analyzed. Regional non-displaceable binding potential (BP ND ) values were calculated using the simplified reference tissue model, with either cerebellum as reference region or a reference input derived using supervised cluster analysis (SVCA). Standardized uptake values (SUVs) were estimated for the time interval of 40–60 min.    Results  Test-retest reliability for BP ND  estimates were poor (80% of ICCs < 0.5). BP ND  estimates derived without an AIF were not correlated with BP ND , total or specific distribution volume from the 2TCM using an AIF (all  R  2  < 12%). SUVs showed moderate reliability but no correlation to any other outcome measure.    Conclusions  Caution is warranted when interpreting patient-control comparisons employing (R)-[ 11 C]PK11195 outcome measures obtained without an AIF.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (10.1186/s13550-018-0455-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Test-retest reliability and convergent validity of (R)-[11C]PK11195 outcome measures without arterial input function