Universitätsbibliothek

PURPOSE: We aimed to (a) elucidate the concordance of visual assessment of an initial I-ioflupane scan by a human interpreter with comparison to results using a fully automatic semiquantitative method and (b) to assess the accuracy compared to follow-up (f/u) diagnosis established by movement disorder specialists. METHODS: An initial I-ioflupane scan was performed in 382 patients with clinically uncertain Parkinsonian syndrome. An experienced reader performed a visual evaluation of all scans independently. The findings of the visual read were compared with semiquantitative evaluation. In addition, available f/u clinical diagnosis (serving as a reference standard) was compared with results of the human read and the software. RESULTS: When comparing the semiquantitative method with the visual assessment, discordance could be found in 25 (6.5%) of 382 of the cases for the experienced reader (ĸ = 0.868). The human observer indicated region of interest misalignment as the main reason for discordance. With neurology f/u serving as reference, the results of the reader revealed a slightly higher accuracy rate (87.7%, ĸ = 0.75) compared to semiquantification (86.2%, ĸ = 0.719, P < 0.001, respectively). No significant difference in the diagnostic performance of the visual read versus software-based assessment was found. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with a fully automatic semiquantitative method in I-ioflupane interpretation, human assessment obtained an almost perfect agreement rate. However, compared to clinical established diagnosis serving as a reference, visual read seemed to be slightly more accurate as a solely software-based quantitative assessment.