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.

54/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Long-term cohort studies

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Importance Fluid and imaging biomarkers of Alzheimer disease (AD) are often used interchangeably, but some biomarkers may reveal earlier stages of disease. Objective To characterize individuals with tau abnormality indicated by cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) assay or positron emission tomography (PET). Design, setting, and participants Between 2010 and 2019, 322 participants in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) underwent CSF and PET assessments of tau pathology.

Key findings

Objective To characterize individuals with tau abnormality indicated by cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) assay or positron emission tomography (PET).
Design, setting, and participants Between 2010 and 2019, 322 participants in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) underwent CSF and PET assessments of tau pathology.
Data-driven, clinically relevant thresholds for CSF phosphorylated tau (P-tau) (≥26.64 pg/mL) and flortaucipir-PET meta-regions of interest (ROI) (standard uptake value ratio ≥1.37) indicated participants' tau status as CSF-/PET-, CSF+/PET-, CSF-/PET+, and CSF+/PET+.
Of 1659 ADNI participants with a CSF or flortaucipir assessment, 588 had both measures (1071 were excluded).

Why it matters

This study characterized people with tau abnormality shown by cerebrospinal fluid assay or PET, since these biomarkers may reveal different stages of disease. It is about diagnosis and does not test any treatment or cure.

Study details

Participants322
Effect size19.5%; 4.6%; 10.5%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 54/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 52 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 54 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA neurology)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	JAMA Neurology: journal h-index 235 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	2 / 5	2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	322 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 125 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	15.6 citations a year over 8 year(s) since 2020
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 13.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	3 / 6	Cited by 16 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 39 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	1 / 3	McGill University: institution h-index 1,373 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31961372)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	52 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 52 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 54 out of 100.
Total	54 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Meyer, P. F., Pichet Binette, A., Gonneaud, J., Breitner, J. C. S., & Villeneuve, S. (2020). Characterization of Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Discrepancies Using Cerebrospinal Fluid Phosphorylated Tau and AV1451 Positron Emission Tomography. JAMA neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4749

Vancouver

Meyer PF, Pichet Binette A, Gonneaud J, Breitner JCS, Villeneuve S. Characterization of Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Discrepancies Using Cerebrospinal Fluid Phosphorylated Tau and AV1451 Positron Emission Tomography. JAMA neurology. 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4749. PMID: 31961372.

BibTeX

@article{meyer2020-31961372,
  author  = {Meyer, P. F. and Pichet Binette, A. and Gonneaud, J. and Breitner, J. C. S. and Villeneuve, S.},
  title   = {{Characterization of Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Discrepancies Using Cerebrospinal Fluid Phosphorylated Tau and AV1451 Positron Emission Tomography}},
  journal = {JAMA neurology},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4749},
  pmid    = {31961372},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4749}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 25.

Later studies that cite this one

16 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Long-term cohort studies

Also tagged “biomarkers”

821 studies in the library carry the topic tag “biomarkers”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 821 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Long-term cohort studies

See all studies in Long-term cohort studies →