This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Fifty-three scans (31.74%) were rated amyloid-positive by all readers, while 62 scans (37.13%) were rated as amyloid-negative by all readers. The remaining 52 scans had inconsistent ratings with an agreement rate of 69.46%. Most (99/167; 59.28%) scans had CL scores above the CL-positive cutoff (CL ≥ 40), and 47/167 (28.14%) were CL-negative scans (CL <10). The lowest CL score to achieve visual positivity among all 3 readers was 57, while the lowest CL score to receive at least 1 indeterminate score was 11. The readers had a high degree of interreader reliability when rating scans as either positive (κ = 0.62) or negative (κ = 0.66) but were inconsistent when rating scans as indeterminate (κ = 0.17). Optimal cut-points were CL <3.6 for consistent negative and CL ≥28.8 for consistent visual positivity. Given the emergence of antiamyloid monoclonal therapies for early-stage Alzheimer disease, reliable detection of amyloidosis is critical for patient care. This study suggests that visual reads of amyloid PET may be insensitive when amyloidosis is milder but are spread across multiple regions (CL ranging from 40 to 59). Quantification of amyloid PET using the CL scale may help guide treatment of patients with mild amyloidosis who are under consideration for antiamyloid disease-modifying therapeutics.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Vijayashankar, A., Keir, G., Sagnelli, M., Petrover, D. R., Djekidel, M., Glaser, J. E., et al. (2025). Added Value of Amyloid PET Quantification with the Centiloid Scale in Clinical Practice. American Journal of Neuroradiology. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a8850

Vancouver

Vijayashankar A, Keir G, Sagnelli M, Petrover DR, Djekidel M, Glaser JE, et al. Added Value of Amyloid PET Quantification with the Centiloid Scale in Clinical Practice. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2025. doi:10.3174/ajnr.a8850. PMID: 40968015.

BibTeX

@article{vijayashankar2025-40968015,
  author  = {Vijayashankar, Akarsh and Keir, Graham and Sagnelli, Matthew and Petrover, David R. and Djekidel, Mehdi and Glaser, Joseph E. and Caravella, Christopher and Clouston, Sean and others},
  title   = {{Added Value of Amyloid PET Quantification with the Centiloid Scale in Clinical Practice}},
  journal = {American Journal of Neuroradiology},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.3174/ajnr.a8850},
  pmid    = {40968015},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a8850}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Fifty-three scans (31.74%) were rated amyloid-positive by all readers, while 62 scans (37.13%) were rated as amyloid-negative by all readers.
The remaining 52 scans had inconsistent ratings with an agreement rate of 69.46%.
Most (99/167; 59.28%) scans had CL scores above the CL-positive cutoff (CL ≥ 40), and 47/167 (28.14%) were CL-negative scans (CL <10).
The lowest CL score to achieve visual positivity among all 3 readers was 57, while the lowest CL score to receive at least 1 indeterminate score was 11.
The readers had a high degree of interreader reliability when rating scans as either positive (κ = 0.62) or negative (κ = 0.66) but were inconsistent when rating scans as indeterminate (κ = 0.17).

Why it matters

Visual reads of amyloid PET were inconsistent for milder amyloidosis, and Centiloid quantification helped define cut-points for consistent negative and positive scans. This may help guide selection of patients for antiamyloid therapies, but it does not test whether those therapies work.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Effect size31.74%; 37.13%; 69.46%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 43/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (American Journal of Neuroradiology)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	American Journal of Neuroradiology: journal h-index 182 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	2 / 7	Cited 5 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	1.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 3.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 5 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	1 / 4	Last-listed author Ana Marija Franceschi: h-index 15 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	New York University: institution h-index 1,612 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40968015)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	43 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also tagged “classification”

835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →