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  Our aim was to compare a widely distributed commercial tool with an older free software (i) one another, (ii) with a clinical motor score, (iii) versus reading by experts.    Procedures  We analyzed consecutive scans from one-hundred and fifty-one outpatients submitted to brain DAT SPECT for a suspected parkinsonism. Images were post-processed using a commercial (Datquant®) and a free (BasGanV2) software. Reading by expert was the gold standard. A subset of patients with pathological or borderline scan was evaluated with the clinical Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, motor part (MDS-UPDRS-III).    Results  SBR, putamen-to-caudate (P/C) ratio, and both P and C asymmetries were highly correlated between the two software with Pearson’s ‘ r ’ correlation coefficients ranging from .706 to .887. Correlation coefficients with the MDS-UPDRS III score were higher with caudate than with putamen SBR values with both software, and in general higher with BasGanV2 than with Datquant®. Datquant® correspondence with expert reading was 84.1% (94.0% by additionally considering the P/C ratio as a further index). BasGanV2 correspondence with expert reading was 80.8% (86.1% by additionally considering the P/C ratio).    Conclusions  Both Datquant® and BasGanV2 work reasonably well and similarly one another in semi-quantification of DAT SPECT. Both tools have their own strength and pitfalls that must be known in detail by users in order to obtain the best help in visual reading and reporting of DAT SPECT.

Striatal dopamine transporter SPECT quantification: head-to-head comparison between two three-dimensional automatic tools