Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Comparison of amyloid PET measured in Centiloid units with neuropathological findings in Alzheimer's disease
Amadoru S, Doré V, McLean CA, McLean CA, Hinton F, Shepherd CE, Halliday GM, Leyton CE et al.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2020-03-04
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background The Centiloid scale was developed to standardise the results of beta-amyloid (Aβ) PET. We aimed to determine the Centiloid unit (CL) thresholds for CERAD sparse and moderate-density neuritic plaques, Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC) score of intermediate or high probability of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), final clinicopathological diagnosis of AD, and expert visual read of a positive Aβ PET scan. Methods Aβ PET results in CL for 49 subjects were compared with post-mortem findings, visual read, and final clinicopathological diagnosis. The Youden Index was used to determine the optimal CL thresholds from receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. Results A threshold of 20.1 CL (21.3 CL when corrected for time to death, AUC 0.97) yielded highest accuracy in detecting moderate or frequent plaque density while < 10 CL was optimal for excluding neuritic plaque. The threshold for ADNC intermediate or high likelihood AD was 49.4 CL (AUC 0.98). Those cases with a final clinicopathological diagnosis of AD yielded a median CL result of 87.7 (IQR ± 42.2) with 94% > 45 CL. Positive visual read agreed highly with results > 26 CL. Conclusions Centiloid values < 10 accurately reflected the absence of any neuritic plaque and > 20 CL indicated the presence of at least moderate plaque density, but approximately 50 CL or more best confirmed both neuropathological and clinicopathological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Amadoru, S., Doré, V., McLean, C. A., Hinton, F., Shepherd, C. E., Halliday, G. M., et al. (2020). Comparison of amyloid PET measured in Centiloid units with neuropathological findings in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00587-5
Vancouver
Amadoru S, Doré V, McLean CA, Hinton F, Shepherd CE, Halliday GM, et al. Comparison of amyloid PET measured in Centiloid units with neuropathological findings in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2020. doi:10.1186/s13195-020-00587-5. PMID: 32131891.
BibTeX
@article{amadoru2020-32131891,
author = {Amadoru, S. and Doré, V. and McLean, C. A. and Hinton, F. and Shepherd, C. E. and Halliday, G. M. and Leyton, C. E. and others},
title = {{Comparison of amyloid PET measured in Centiloid units with neuropathological findings in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-020-00587-5},
pmid = {32131891},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00587-5}
}
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
- Background The Centiloid scale was developed to standardise the results of beta-amyloid (Aβ) PET.
- Methods Aβ PET results in CL for 49 subjects were compared with post-mortem findings, visual read, and final clinicopathological diagnosis.
- Results A threshold of 20.1 CL (21.3 CL when corrected for time to death, AUC 0.97) yielded highest accuracy in detecting moderate or frequent plaque density while < 10 CL was optimal for excluding neuritic plaque.
- Those cases with a final clinicopathological diagnosis of AD yielded a median CL result of 87.7 (IQR ± 42.2) with 94% > 45 CL.
- Positive visual read agreed highly with results > 26 CL.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants49
- Effect sizeAUC 0.97; AUC 0.98
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 49 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 32131891) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “centiloid”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “centiloid”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.