Home › Research › Treatments
[Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities in Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Alzheimer's Disease: Expert Recommendation for Standard MRI Protocol]
Kim J, Kim E, Park M, Bae YJ, Suh CH, You SH, Yim Y, Lee HJ et al.. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology, 2025-01-24
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The introduction of anti-amyloid therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD), such as lecanemab (Lequembi ® ), which was recently approved in Korea, necessitates careful monitoring for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) using brain MRI. To optimize ARIA monitoring in Korean clinical settings, the Korean Society of Neuroradiology (KSNR) and the Age and Neurodegeneration Imaging (ANDI) Study Group proposed MRI protocol recommendations on essential MR sequences, MRI acquisition parameters, timing and condition of MRI examinations, and essential details to provide a scientific basis for maximizing the safety and efficacy of AD treatment. A customized, standardized MRI protocol focusing on Korea's healthcare environment can improve ARIA management and ensure patient safety through early detection of potential anti-amyloid therapy side effects, thereby enhancing treatment quality.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kim, J., Kim, E., Park, M., Bae, Y. J., Suh, C. H., You, S. H., et al. (2025). [Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities in Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Alzheimer's Disease: Expert Recommendation for Standard MRI Protocol]. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology. https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2024.0147
Vancouver
Kim J, Kim E, Park M, Bae YJ, Suh CH, You SH, et al. [Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities in Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Alzheimer's Disease: Expert Recommendation for Standard MRI Protocol]. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology. 2025. doi:10.3348/jksr.2024.0147. PMID: 39958493.
BibTeX
@article{kim2025-39958493,
author = {Kim, J. and Kim, E. and Park, M. and Bae, Y. J. and Suh, C. H. and You, S. H. and Yim, Y. and Lee, H. J. and others},
title = {{[Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities in Anti-Amyloid Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Alzheimer's Disease: Expert Recommendation for Standard MRI Protocol]}},
journal = {Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.3348/jksr.2024.0147},
pmid = {39958493},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2024.0147}
}
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
- The introduction of anti-amyloid therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD), such as lecanemab (Lequembi ® ), which was recently approved in Korea, necessitates careful monitoring for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) using brain MRI.
- To optimize ARIA monitoring in Korean clinical settings, the Korean Society of Neuroradiology (KSNR) and the Age and Neurodegeneration Imaging (ANDI) Study Group proposed MRI protocol recommendations on essential MR sequences, MRI acquisition parameters, timing and condition of MRI examinations, and essential details to provide a scientific basis for maximizing the safety and efficacy of AD treatment.
- A customized, standardized MRI protocol focusing on Korea's healthcare environment can improve ARIA management and ensure patient safety through early detection of potential anti-amyloid therapy side effects, thereby enhancing treatment quality.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed 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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology) |
| 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 | 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 | 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 39958493) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.