Home › Research › Biomarkers
Centiloids in Amyloid PET: A Practical Guide to Quantitation Interpretation
Barbara J. Grabher. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 2026-02-10
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The approval of disease-modifying antiamyloid therapies has expanded the clinical role of amyloid PET beyond diagnostic confirmation to include baseline characterization and longitudinal monitoring of treatment response. Although visual interpretation remains the clinical standard for amyloid PET, it may be limited in borderline cases and when assessing subtle changes in amyloid burden over time. Quantitative amyloid PET provides objective measures that complement visual assessment, with z scores, SUV ratios, and Centiloid scaling offering increasing clinical utility. The Centiloid scale standardizes amyloid PET quantification across tracers, scanners, and institutions by anchoring measurements to biologically defined reference points, enabling consistent interpretation and comparison. This article describes the principles of amyloid PET quantification, explains the origin and interpretation of Centiloids, and discusses their role in therapy monitoring and clinical decision-making. Understanding quantitative amyloid PET and its limitations is essential for nuclear medicine professionals in the evolving landscape of Alzheimer disease imaging.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Grabher, B. J. (2026). Centiloids in Amyloid PET: A Practical Guide to Quantitation Interpretation. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.125.271823
Vancouver
Grabher BJ. Centiloids in Amyloid PET: A Practical Guide to Quantitation Interpretation. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. 2026. doi:10.2967/jnmt.125.271823. PMID: 41667282.
BibTeX
@article{grabher2026-41667282,
author = {Grabher, Barbara J.},
title = {{Centiloids in Amyloid PET: A Practical Guide to Quantitation Interpretation}},
journal = {Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.2967/jnmt.125.271823},
pmid = {41667282},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.125.271823}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Although visual interpretation remains the clinical standard for amyloid PET, it may be limited in borderline cases and when assessing subtle changes in amyloid burden over time.
- Quantitative amyloid PET provides objective measures that complement visual assessment, with z scores, SUV ratios, and Centiloid scaling offering increasing clinical utility.
- The Centiloid scale standardizes amyloid PET quantification across tracers, scanners, and institutions by anchoring measurements to biologically defined reference points, enabling consistent interpretation and comparison.
- This article describes the principles of amyloid PET quantification, explains the origin and interpretation of Centiloids, and discusses their role in therapy monitoring and clinical decision-making.
- Understanding quantitative amyloid PET and its limitations is essential for nuclear medicine professionals in the evolving landscape of Alzheimer disease imaging.
Why it matters
This guide explains how Centiloid scaling standardizes amyloid PET quantification and how it can be used for monitoring treatment response. It is a methodological overview and does not itself test any treatment or prevention.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 44/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 93 points we could judge it on, which is 44 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: journal h-index 51 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” 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 | 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 | 1 / 7 | Cited 3 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.5 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 14.2× 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 | 1 / 4 | Cited 3 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Barbara J. Grabher holds only 9 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 0 institution(s) in 0 countries — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41667282) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 41 / 93 | Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 93 points we could judge it on is 44 out of 100. |
| Total | 44 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “classification”
835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.