| Title |
Imaging β-amyloid using [18F]flutemetamol positron emission tomography: from dosimetry to clinical diagnosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00259-015-3208-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kerstin Heurling, Antoine Leuzy, Eduardo R. Zimmer, Mark Lubberink, Agneta Nordberg |
| Abstract |
In Alzheimer's disease (AD), the deposition of β-amyloid (Aβ) is hypothesized to result in a series of secondary neurodegenerative processes, leading ultimately to synaptic dysfunction and neuronal loss. Since the advent of the first Aβ-specific positron emission tomography (PET) ligand, (11)C-Pittsburgh compound B ([(11)C]PIB), several (18)F ligands have been developed that circumvent the limitations of [(11)C]PIB tied to its short half-life. To date, three such compounds have been approved for clinical use by the US and European regulatory bodies, including [(18)F]AV-45 ([(18)F]florbetapir; Amyvid™), [(18)F]-BAY94-9172 ([(18)F]florbetaben; Neuraceq™) and [(18)F]3'-F-PIB ([(18)F]flutemetamol; Vizamyl™). The present review aims to summarize and discuss the currently available knowledge on [(18)F]flutemetamol PET. As the (18)F analogue of [(11)C]PIB, [(18)F]flutemetamol may be of use in the differentiation of AD from related neurodegenerative disorders and may help with subject selection and measurement of target engagement in the context of clinical trials testing anti-amyloid therapeutics. We will also discuss its potential use in non-AD amyloidopathies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 19% |
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 28% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 9% |
| Psychology | 7 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,977,540
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#124
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,719
of 279,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#3
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.