Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

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

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Objective To examine whether amyloid PET in cognitively normal (CN) individuals screened for the Anti-Amyloid in Asymptomatic Alzheimer's Disease (A4) study differed across self-identified non-Hispanic White and Black (NHW and NHB) groups. Methods We examined 3,689 NHW and 144 NHB participants who passed initial screening for the A4 study and underwent amyloid PET. The effect of race on amyloid PET was examined using logistic (dichotomous groups) and linear (continuous values) regression controlling for age, sex, and number of APOE ε4 and APOE ε2 alleles. Associations between amyloid and genetically determined ancestry (reflecting African, South Asian, East Asian, American, and European populations) were tested within the NHB group. Potential interactions with APOE were assessed. Results NHB participants had lower rates of amyloid positivity and lower continuous amyloid levels compared to NHW participants. This race effect on amyloid was strongest in the APOE ε4 group. Within NHB participants, those with a lower percentage of African ancestry had higher amyloid. A greater proportion of NHB participants did not pass initial screening compared to NHW participants, suggesting potential sources of bias related to race in the A4 PET data. Conclusion Reduced amyloid was observed in self-identified NHB participants who passed initial eligibility criteria for the A4 study. This work stresses the importance of investigating AD biomarkers in ancestrally diverse samples as well as the need for careful consideration regarding study eligibility criteria in AD prevention trials.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 43/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 25 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 43 of 100. Total 43 of 100.25 of the 58 points we could judge = 43 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 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 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33568538)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 25 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total 43 / 100 —

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

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

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

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Deters, K. D., Napolioni, V., Sperling, R. A., Greicius, M. D., Mayeux, R., Hohman, T., et al. (2021). Amyloid PET Imaging in Self-Identified Non-Hispanic Black Participants of the Anti-Amyloid in Asymptomatic Alzheimer's Disease (A4) Study. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000011599

Vancouver

Deters KD, Napolioni V, Sperling RA, Greicius MD, Mayeux R, Hohman T, et al. Amyloid PET Imaging in Self-Identified Non-Hispanic Black Participants of the Anti-Amyloid in Asymptomatic Alzheimer's Disease (A4) Study. Neurology. 2021. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000011599. PMID: 33568538.

BibTeX

@article{deters2021-33568538,
  author  = {Deters, K. D. and Napolioni, V. and Sperling, R. A. and Greicius, M. D. and Mayeux, R. and Hohman, T. and Mormino, E. C.},
  title   = {{Amyloid PET Imaging in Self-Identified Non-Hispanic Black Participants of the Anti-Amyloid in Asymptomatic Alzheimer's Disease (A4) Study}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000011599},
  pmid    = {33568538},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000011599}
}

Related studies in Treatments

Also tagged “18f”

319 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 319 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →