Open Access

Erratum to: Test-retest analysis of a non-invasive method of quantifying [(11)C]-PBR28 binding in Alzheimer's disease

  • Akshay Nair1Email author,
  • Mattia Veronese2,
  • Xiaohui Xu3, 4,
  • Charles Curtis3, 4,
  • Federico Turkheimer2,
  • Robert Howard5 and
  • Suzanne Reeves5
EJNMMI Research20177:14

DOI: 10.1186/s13550-017-0256-5

Received: 5 January 2017

Accepted: 5 January 2017

Published: 14 February 2017

The original article was published in EJNMMI Research 2016 6:72

Erratum

Following publication of the original article [1] the authors contacted the team with the request that some additional information be added to the article. Please see below for details:

Additional Table: absolute variability

Variability (VAR) presented in the main article represents mean variability between test and retest, not absolute variability as stated. The authors would like to apologise for this error. The absolute variability is presented in the table below has been calculated in the following manner:
$$ \mathbf{Absolute}\ \mathbf{variability} = \left(\mathbf{2}*\left(\left|\mathbf{Test}\ \hbox{--}\ \mathbf{Retest}\right|\right)\right)\ /\ \left(\mathbf{Test} + \mathbf{Retest}\right)\Big)\ *\ \mathbf{100} $$
 

Raw SUV

SUVWB

SUVC

Frontal Lobe

6.05

1.01

4.36

(2.45)

(0.67)

(4.84)

Parietal Lobe

6.69

0.97

5.15

(2.33)

(0.77)

(5.10)

Temporal Lobe

5.92

0.61

3.78

(3.13)

(0.49)

(4.92)

Occipital Lobe

6.81

1.07

3.87

(2.83)

(0.88)

(3.79)

Hippocampus

5.82

1.57

5.35

(1.95)

(1.34)

(6.50)

Parahippocam-pal cortex

5.05

2.07

5.77

(3.78)

(2.58)

(7.96)

Posterior Cingulate

6.58

1.89

5.92

(2.60)

(1.33)

(5.97)

Amygdala

3.45

4.31

6.54

(4.50)

(3.17)

(8.56)

Cerebellum

7.18

4.18

 

(7.84)

(5.07)

Whole Brain

6.09

  

(2.73)

Mean (SD)

5.96

1.96

5.09

(3.41)

(1.81)

(5.95)

These analyses allow for easier comparison with other studies however do no alter the findings or discussion of the paper – SUV normalised to whole brain (SUVWB) shows the lowest variability in our cohort, with increased variability found in the unadjusted SUV and the SUV normalised to cerebellum. As compared to other test-retest studies discussed in the paper, the variability for SUV based methods remains favourable in this pilot cohort. These results should be validated in larger studies.

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
UCL Huntington’s Disease Research Group
(2)
Centre for Neuroimaging Sciences, IoPPN, King’s College London
(3)
MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London
(4)
NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health, Maudsley Hospital and Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London
(5)
Division of Psychiatry, University College London

References

  1. Nair A, et al. Test-retest analysis of a non-invasive method of quantifying [(11)C]-PBR28 binding in Alzheimer's disease. EJNMMI Res. 2016;6:72.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017