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.

79/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Results This meta-analysis included cross-sectional amyloid PET scans acquired with 5 radiotracers from 49 227 participants across 53 studies from 15 countries (mean age, 71 years; 54% female, 62% cognitively impaired). The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%). Findings from a double-cutoff analysis suggest that scans in the 11 to 26 Centiloid range should be interpreted with caution depending on the context of use.

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

APA 7th

Blazhenets, G., Soleimani-Meigooni, D. N., Chiotis, K., Allen, I. E., Rabinovici, G. D., La Joie, R., et al. (2026). Amyloid PET Quantitation and Centiloid Thresholds in the Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.13116

Vancouver

Blazhenets G, Soleimani-Meigooni DN, Chiotis K, Allen IE, Rabinovici GD, La Joie R, et al. Amyloid PET Quantitation and Centiloid Thresholds in the Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis. JAMA. 2026. doi:10.1001/jama.2026.13116. PMID: 42441390.

BibTeX

@article{blazhenets2026-42441390,
  author  = {Blazhenets, Ganna and Soleimani-Meigooni, David N and Chiotis, Konstantinos and Allen, Isabel E and Rabinovici, Gil D and La Joie, Renaud and {Meta-Centiloid Study Group} and Apostolova, Liana G and others},
  title   = {{Amyloid PET Quantitation and Centiloid Thresholds in the Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis}},
  journal = {JAMA},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1001/jama.2026.13116},
  pmid    = {42441390},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.13116}
}

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

Results This meta-analysis included cross-sectional amyloid PET scans acquired with 5 radiotracers from 49 227 participants across 53 studies from 15 countries (mean age, 71 years; 54% female, 62% cognitively impaired).
The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I2 = 95%).
Findings from a double-cutoff analysis suggest that scans in the 11 to 26 Centiloid range should be interpreted with caution depending on the context of use.

Why it matters

This large analysis of amyloid PET scans found that scans could be confidently read as negative below a Centiloid value of 11 and positive above 26. Scans in the 11 to 26 range should be interpreted with caution depending on the context, which matters for how amyloid PET results are used in diagnosis.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →

Study details

Study designmeta-analysis
Participants49,227
Effect sizePooled amyloid PET positivity cut-off 18 Centiloids (95% CI 16-19) data-driven; 27 Centiloids (95% CI 24-30) by visual-read correspondence
Evidence strengthHigh

Limitations

Very high between-study heterogeneity (I2 up to 97%); cross-sectional scans only; participants were research-cohort volunteers rather than routine clinic patients.

How this study scored 79/100

Published in a top-tier journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. We have no data on free to read, so that was left out: it earned 77 of the 98 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	10 / 10	Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (JAMA)
Journal's citation record	4 / 4	JAMA: journal h-index 1,011 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	12 / 12	A meta-analysis pooling many studies
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” 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	4 / 4	49,227 participants
Effect reported	3 / 3	Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
Times cited	2 / 7	Cited 7 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	3.5 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year	5 / 6	Cited 33.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 2 other studies in this library
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 7 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Heather M. Snyder: h-index 36 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	3 / 3	Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 82 institution(s) in 16 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42441390)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	77 / 98	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 77 of the 98 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100.
Total	79 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — Unpaywall lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

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 17.

Later studies that cite this one

2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →