Home › Research › Biomarkers
Comparing ATN-T designation by tau PET visual reads, tau PET quantification, and CSF PTau181 across three cohorts
Provost K, Iaccarino L, Soleimani-Meigooni DN, Baker S, Edwards L, Eichenlaub U, Hansson O, Jagust W et al.. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2021-01-04
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Purpose To compare rates of tau biomarker positivity (T-status) per the 2018 Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Research Framework derived from [ 18 F]flortaucipir (FTP) PET visual assessment, FTP quantification, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) phosphorylated Tau-181 (PTau181). Methods We included 351 subjects with varying clinical diagnoses from three cohorts with available FTP PET and CSF PTau181 within 18 months. T-status was derived from (1) FTP visual assessment by two blinded raters; (2) FTP standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) quantification from a temporal meta-ROI (threshold: SUVR ≥1.27); and (3) Elecsys® Phospho-Tau (181P) CSF (Roche Diagnostics) concentrations (threshold: PTau181 ≥ 24.5 pg/mL). Results FTP visual reads yielded the highest rates of T+, while T+ by SUVR increased progressively from cognitively normal (CN) through mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD dementia. T+ designation by CSF PTau181 was intermediate between FTP visual reads and SUVR values in CN, similar to SUVR in MCI, and lower in AD dementia. Concordance in T-status between modality pairs ranged from 68 to 76% and varied by clinical diagnosis, being highest in patients with AD dementia. In discriminating Aβ + MCI and AD subjects from healthy controls and non-AD participants, FTP visual assessment was most sensitive (0.96) but least specific (0.60). Specificity was highest with FTP SUVR (0.91) with sensitivity of 0.89. Sensitivity (0.73) and specificity (0.72) were balanced for PTau181. Conclusion The choice of tau biomarker may differ by disease stage and research goals that seek to maximize sensitivity or specificity. Visual interpretations of tau PET enhance sensitivity compared to quantification alone, particularly in early disease stages.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Provost, K., Iaccarino, L., Soleimani-Meigooni, D. N., Baker, S., Edwards, L., Eichenlaub, U., et al. (2021). Comparing ATN-T designation by tau PET visual reads, tau PET quantification, and CSF PTau181 across three cohorts. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05152-8
Vancouver
Provost K, Iaccarino L, Soleimani-Meigooni DN, Baker S, Edwards L, Eichenlaub U, et al. Comparing ATN-T designation by tau PET visual reads, tau PET quantification, and CSF PTau181 across three cohorts. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2021. doi:10.1007/s00259-020-05152-8. PMID: 33398408.
BibTeX
@article{provost2021-33398408,
author = {Provost, K. and Iaccarino, L. and Soleimani-Meigooni, D. N. and Baker, S. and Edwards, L. and Eichenlaub, U. and Hansson, O. and Jagust, W. and others},
title = {{Comparing ATN-T designation by tau PET visual reads, tau PET quantification, and CSF PTau181 across three cohorts}},
journal = {European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1007/s00259-020-05152-8},
pmid = {33398408},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05152-8}
}
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 FTP visual reads yielded the highest rates of T+, while T+ by SUVR increased progressively from cognitively normal (CN) through mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD dementia.
- Visual interpretations of tau PET enhance sensitivity compared to quantification alone, particularly in early disease stages.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants351
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 351 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | — / 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 33398408) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| 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 Biomarkers
Also in Biomarkers
208 studies in the library are filed under Biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Biomarkers hub.