Fig. 3
From: Amyloid PET quantification using low-dose CT-guided anatomic standardization
Comparison of the SUVR and CL values obtained from the MRI-based, CT-based, and PET-only approaches. Bland–Altman plots a, d showed slight but significant underestimation of SUVRCT and CLCT compared with SUVRMRI and CLMRI, respectively (p < 0.002). Spearman correlation analysis did not show a significant association between the difference in SUVRMRI versus SUVRCT and SUVR load (ρ = − 0.379, p = 0.051) and between the difference in CLMRI versus CLCT and CL load (ρ = − 0.389, p = 0.060). Pearson correlation analysis g, j showed highly significant correlations of r = 0.998 between SUVRCT and SUVRMRI and between CLCT and CLMRI (p < 0.001). Bland–Altman plots b, e showed significant underestimation of SUVRmPET and CLmPET compared with SUVRMRI and CLMRI, respectively (p < 0.05). Spearman correlation analysis showed a significant association between the difference in SUVRMRI versus SUVRmPET and SUVR load (ρ = − 0.713, p < 0.001) and between the difference in CLMRI versus CLmPET and CL load (ρ = − 0.702, p < 0.001). Pearson correlation analysis h, k showed highly significant correlations of r = 0.971 between SUVRmPET and SUVRMRI and between CLmPET and CLMRI (p < 0.001). Bland–Altman plots c, f showed a tendency for overestimation of SUVRaPET and CLaPET compared with SUVRMRI and CLMRI, respectively (p > 0.2). Spearman correlation analysis showed a significant association between the difference in SUVRMRI versus SUVRaPET and SUVR load (ρ = 0.515, p < 0.001) and between the difference in CLMRI versus CLmPET difference and CL load (ρ = 0.515, p < 0.001). Pearson correlation analysis i, l showed significant correlations of r = 0.975 between SUVRaPET and SUVRMRI and between CLaPET and CLMRI (p < 0.001)