Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Objective We examined agreement and disagreement between 2 biomarkers of β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition (amyloid positron emission tomography [PET] and cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] Aβ1-42 ) in normal aging and dementia in a large multicenter study. Methods Concurrently acquired florbetapir PET and CSF Aβ were measured in cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease participants (n = 374) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. We also compared Aβ measurements in a separate group with serial CSF measurements over 3.1 ± 0.8 years that preceded a single florbetapir session. Additional biomarker and cognitive data allowed us to further examine profiles of discordant cases. Results Florbetapir and CSF Aβ were inversely correlated across all diagnostic groups, and dichotomous measurements were in agreement in 86% of subjects. Among subjects showing the most disagreement, the 2 discordant groups had different profiles: the florbetapir(+) /CSF Aβ(-) group was larger (n = 13) and was made up of only normal and early MCI subjects, whereas the florbetapir(-) /CSF Aβ(+) group was smaller (n = 7) and had poorer cognitive function and higher CSF tau, but no ApoE4 carriers. In the longitudinal sample, we observed both stable longitudinal CSF Aβ trajectories and those actively transitioning from normal to abnormal, but the final CSF Aβ measurements were in good agreement with florbetapir cortical retention. Interpretation CSF and amyloid PET measurements of Aβ were consistent in the majority of subjects in the cross-sectional and longitudinal populations. Based on our analysis of discordant subjects, the available evidence did not show that CSF Aβ regularly becomes abnormal prior to fibrillar Aβ accumulation early in the course of disease.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 59/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 36 of the 61 points it could be judged on, which is 59 of 100. Total 59 of 100.36 of the 61 points we could judge = 59 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 36 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Annals of neurology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in 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 1 / 5 2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 374 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 2 / 3 PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23536396)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 36 / 61 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100.
Total 59 / 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.

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. 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.

APA 7th

Landau, S. M., Lu, M., Joshi, A. D., Pontecorvo, M., Mintun, M. A., Trojanowski, J. Q., et al. (2013). Comparing positron emission tomography imaging and cerebrospinal fluid measurements of β-amyloid. Annals of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.23908

Vancouver

Landau SM, Lu M, Joshi AD, Pontecorvo M, Mintun MA, Trojanowski JQ, et al. Comparing positron emission tomography imaging and cerebrospinal fluid measurements of β-amyloid. Annals of neurology. 2013. doi:10.1002/ana.23908. PMID: 23536396.

BibTeX

@article{landau2013-23536396,
  author  = {Landau, S. M. and Lu, M. and Joshi, A. D. and Pontecorvo, M. and Mintun, M. A. and Trojanowski, J. Q. and Shaw, L. M. and Jagust, W. J. and others},
  title   = {{Comparing positron emission tomography imaging and cerebrospinal fluid measurements of β-amyloid}},
  journal = {Annals of neurology},
  year    = {2013},
  doi     = {10.1002/ana.23908},
  pmid    = {23536396},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.23908}
}

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging

Also tagged “18f”

319 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 319 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →