Table 3.

Comparisons of PDCP network and subject scores with FDG PET images normalized by four versions of SPM software

	SPM99	SPM2	SPM5	SPM8
VAF (%)	19.28	20.92	20.65	20.81
GIS weightsa	1.000/1.000	0.976/0.949	0.968/0.940	0.970/0.943
PCA derivation sample
15 PD	0.864 ± 0.312	0.640 ± 0.325	0.608 ± 0.326	0.617 ± 0.325
CVLT	−0.727b	−0.661c	−0.645c	−0.650c
TPR validation sample
15 PD2	1.087 ± 0.236	0.883 ± 0.225	0.851 ± 0.222	0.856 ± 0.222
CVLT	−0.503d	−0.610d	−0.612d	−0.610d
CVLT 30 PD	−0.650a	−0.642a	−0.632a	−0.635a
Subject score correlationa
15 PD	1.000	0.965	0.957	0.959
15 NC	1.000	0.948	0.947	0.952
15 PD2	1.000	0.975	0.970	0.973

VAF, variance accounted for in principal component analysis; GIS, Group Invariant Subprofile from the derivation sample of patients with PD.

The correlations of the GIS weights were performed over a standard 30 VOI template with a threshold of 80% or over all voxels of the brain with non‐zero values.

All average values are given as mean ± SE.

^a P < 0.0001; Pearson correlation coefficient from regression analysis.

^b P < 0.005.

^c P < 0.01.

^d P < 0.05.