Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Centiloid recommendations for clinical context-of-use from the AMYPAD consortium
Collij LE, Bollack A, La Joie R, Shekari M, Bullich S, Roé-Vellvé N, Koglin N, Jovalekic A et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2024-11-20
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Amyloid-PET quantification through the tracer-independent Centiloid (CL) scale has emerged as an essential tool for the accurate measurement of amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. The AMYPAD consortium set out to integrate existing literature and recent work from the consortium to provide clinical context-of-use recommendations for the CL scale. Compared to histopathology, visual reads, and cerebrospinal fluid, CL quantification accurately reflects the amount of AD pathology. With high certainty, a CL value below 10 excludes the presence of Aβ pathology, while a value above 30 corresponds well with pathological amounts. Values falling in between these two cutoffs ("intermediate range") are related to an increased risk of disease progression. Together, CL quantification is a valuable adjunct to visual assessments of amyloid-PET images. An abnormal amyloid biomarker assessment is a key criterion to determine eligibility for anti-amyloid disease-modifying therapies, and amyloid-PET quantification can add further value by precisely monitoring amyloid clearance, and hence guiding patient management decisions. HIGHLIGHTS: Centiloid (CL) quantification robustly reflects of the amount of Aβ pathology. CL < 10/CL > 30 reflects Aβ-negativity/positivity thresholds with high certainty. CL quantification is a valuable adjunct to visual assessments of amyloid-PET. CL quantification can support trial design and treatment management. CL quantification could support the identification of early or emerging Aβ pathology.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Collij, L. E., Bollack, A., La Joie, R., Shekari, M., Bullich, S., Roé-Vellvé, N., et al. (2024). Centiloid recommendations for clinical context-of-use from the AMYPAD consortium. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14336
Vancouver
Collij LE, Bollack A, La Joie R, Shekari M, Bullich S, Roé-Vellvé N, et al. Centiloid recommendations for clinical context-of-use from the AMYPAD consortium. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2024. doi:10.1002/alz.14336. PMID: 39564918.
BibTeX
@article{collij2024-39564918,
author = {Collij, L. E. and Bollack, A. and La Joie, R. and Shekari, M. and Bullich, S. and Roé-Vellvé, N. and Koglin, N. and Jovalekic, A. and others},
title = {{Centiloid recommendations for clinical context-of-use from the AMYPAD consortium}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1002/alz.14336},
pmid = {39564918},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14336}
}
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
- Compared to histopathology, visual reads, and cerebrospinal fluid, CL quantification accurately reflects the amount of AD pathology.
- Values falling in between these two cutoffs ("intermediate range") are related to an increased risk of disease progression.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 2024 — 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 39564918) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “centiloid”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “centiloid”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.