Table 4.
Intensity scaling summary.
| Template affection | Variance | Longitudinal effect size | Pathology affection | Histology | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SUVCTX | o | − | − | o | − |
| SUVRCTX∕CBL | − | + | + | o | + |
| SUVRCTX∕WM | o | + | ++ | o | +(+) |
| SUVRCTX∕BST | o | + | ++ | o | + |
| SUVRCTX∕GLM | − | + | + | − | +(+) |
Significant advantages (moderate: +, light green; large: ++, dark green)/disadvantages (−, light red) of different SUVCTX and SUVR calculations are illustrated in five categories, which are deemed relevant for analysis of [18F]-florbetaben measurements in the mouse brain. “o” indicate neutral condition; bracketed “+” indicate a trend to advantage. “Template affection” refers to results Section Template Characteristics Influence Brain Normalization Results. “Variance” refers to result Section Intracerebral Reference Regions give Lower Variance and Higher Longitudinal Effect Sizes When Compared to SUV. “Longitudinal effect size” refers to result Section Intracerebral Reference Regions Give Lower Variance and Higher Longitudinal Effect Sizes When Compared to SUV. “Pathology affection” refers to result Section Global Mean Scaling Gives Physiologically Implausible Longitudinal Intensity Decreases in the Hindbrain. “Histology” refers to result Section Intensity Scaling by Intracerebral Reference Regions Gives Superior Agreement with Histology Compared to SUV, and is Further Improved by Automated Brain Spatial Normalization.