alzhub.org
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.

Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging

Comparison of amyloid PET acquired through standardized and unstandardized protocols

Karly A Cody, Andrzej Sokolowski, Lucah Medina Guerra, Philip S Insel, William J Jagust, Theresa M Harrison, Elizabeth C Mormino. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2025-09

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 46 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Within each tracer, GMM-derived amyloid negative (A-) CL distributions were similar across cohorts. PIB and NAV showed lower CL variability in the A- range than FBP and FBB. Consistent post-processing yielded comparable A- distributions within tracer across cohorts with heterogeneous pre-processing protocols, supporting future ADRC PET data integration. Reduced variability in A- classes for PIB and NAV suggest that lower positivity thresholds may be appropriate. HIGHLIGHTS: Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC) amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) includes unstandardized and standardized pre-processing. With consistent post-processing, amyloid-negative (A-) Centiloids (CLs) were similar despite variable pre-processing. CLs from 11C-Pittsburgh compound B and 18F-NAV4694 were less variable than 18F-florbetaben and 18F-florbetapir. Similar A- CLs across variable pre-processing supports combining ADRC amyloid PET.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Cody, K. A., Sokolowski, A., Guerra, L. M., Insel, P. S., Jagust, W. J., Harrison, T. M., et al. (2025). Comparison of amyloid PET acquired through standardized and unstandardized protocols. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.70697

Vancouver

Cody KA, Sokolowski A, Guerra LM, Insel PS, Jagust WJ, Harrison TM, et al. Comparison of amyloid PET acquired through standardized and unstandardized protocols. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz.70697. PMID: 40983958.

BibTeX

@article{cody2025-40983958,
  author  = {Cody, Karly A and Sokolowski, Andrzej and Guerra, Lucah Medina and Insel, Philip S and Jagust, William J and Harrison, Theresa M and Mormino, Elizabeth C},
  title   = {{Comparison of amyloid PET acquired through standardized and unstandardized protocols}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz.70697},
  pmid    = {40983958},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.70697}
}

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →

Study details

How this study scored 46/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 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 left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 26 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 46 of 100. Total 46 of 100.26 of the 56 points we could judge = 46 of 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
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 2025 — 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 40983958)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 26 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100.
Total 46 / 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 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 →