Home › Research › Biomarkers
Additive value of early-phase β-Amyloid-PET for the differential diagnosis of non-Alzheimer’s disease dementia
Sebastian Eckenweber, Friederike Völter, Nicolai Franzmeier, Carla Palleis, Olivia Wagemann, Endy Weidinger, Sabrina Katzdobler, Elisabeth Wlasich et al.. NeuroImage Clinical, 2026-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Neurodegeneration status was correctly identified in 78.8% (119/151) of amyloid-negative patients through visual rating, compared to 67.5% (102/151) using logistic regression. Visual assessment assigned 75.3% (67/89) of A-N+ patients to the correct diagnostic category. In contrast, the regression model classified 69.7% (62/89) of patients. The current study demonstrates an additive value of early-phase β-amyloid-PET for the differential diagnosis of dementia syndromes. While visual assessment of early-phase β-amyloid-PET already provides substantial diagnostic accuracy, a data-driven analysis approach could aid in cases of uncertainty.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Eckenweber, S., Völter, F., Franzmeier, N., Palleis, C., Wagemann, O., Weidinger, E., et al. (2026). Additive value of early-phase β-Amyloid-PET for the differential diagnosis of non-Alzheimer’s disease dementia. NeuroImage Clinical. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2026.103963
Vancouver
Eckenweber S, Völter F, Franzmeier N, Palleis C, Wagemann O, Weidinger E, et al. Additive value of early-phase β-Amyloid-PET for the differential diagnosis of non-Alzheimer’s disease dementia. NeuroImage Clinical. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2026.103963. PMID: 41690259.
BibTeX
@article{eckenweber2026-41690259,
author = {Eckenweber, Sebastian and Völter, Friederike and Franzmeier, Nicolai and Palleis, Carla and Wagemann, Olivia and Weidinger, Endy and Katzdobler, Sabrina and Wlasich, Elisabeth and others},
title = {{Additive value of early-phase β-Amyloid-PET for the differential diagnosis of non-Alzheimer’s disease dementia}},
journal = {NeuroImage Clinical},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1016/j.nicl.2026.103963},
pmid = {41690259},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2026.103963}
}
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
- Neurodegeneration status was correctly identified in 78.8% (119/151) of amyloid-negative patients through visual rating, compared to 67.5% (102/151) using logistic regression.
- Visual assessment assigned 75.3% (67/89) of A-N+ patients to the correct diagnostic category.
- In contrast, the regression model classified 69.7% (62/89) of patients.
- The current study demonstrates an additive value of early-phase β-amyloid-PET for the differential diagnosis of dementia syndromes.
- While visual assessment of early-phase β-amyloid-PET already provides substantial diagnostic accuracy, a data-driven analysis approach could aid in cases of uncertainty.
Why it matters
Early-phase β-amyloid-PET helped correctly identify neurodegeneration status in most amyloid-negative patients and assign many to the right diagnostic category, with visual assessment performing better than a regression model. This is about improving diagnosis of dementia syndromes, not about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants379
- Effect size78.8%; 67.5%; 75.3%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage Clinical) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | NeuroImage Clinical: journal h-index 133 (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 | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 379 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | 0 / 6 | Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Sonja Schönecker: h-index 26 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München: institution h-index 1,224 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 2 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41690259) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1016/j.nicl.2026.103963
- PubMed: 41690259
- Original source →
- Free full text: NeuroImage Clinical →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 13.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “machine”
834 studies in the library carry the topic tag “machine”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 834 tagged studies.