Home › Research › Biomarkers
Defining imaging biomarker cut points for brain aging and Alzheimer's disease
Clifford R. Jack, Heather J. Wiste, Stephen D. Weigand, Terry M. Therneau, Val J. Lowe, David S. Knopman, Jeffrey L. Gunter, Matthew L. Senjem et al.. Alzheimer s & Dementia, 2016-09-30
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The reliable worsening method produced a cut point only for amyloid PET. The specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of cognitively impaired versus young clinically normal (CN) methods labeled the most people abnormal and all gave similar cut points for tau PET, FDG PET, and cortical thickness. Cut points defined using the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus age-matched CN method labeled fewer people abnormal. In the future, we will use a single cut point for amyloid PET (standardized uptake value ratio, 1.42; centiloid, 19) based on the reliable worsening cut point method. We will base lenient cut points for tau PET, FDG PET, and cortical thickness on the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus young CN method and base conservative cut points on the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus age-matched CN method.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jack, C. R., Wiste, H. J., Weigand, S. D., Therneau, T. M., Lowe, V. J., Knopman, D. S., et al. (2016). Defining imaging biomarker cut points for brain aging and Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer s & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2016.08.005
Vancouver
Jack CR, Wiste HJ, Weigand SD, Therneau TM, Lowe VJ, Knopman DS, et al. Defining imaging biomarker cut points for brain aging and Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer s & Dementia. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.08.005. PMID: 27697430.
BibTeX
@article{jack2016-27697430,
author = {Jack, Clifford R. and Wiste, Heather J. and Weigand, Stephen D. and Therneau, Terry M. and Lowe, Val J. and Knopman, David S. and Gunter, Jeffrey L. and Senjem, Matthew L. and others},
title = {{Defining imaging biomarker cut points for brain aging and Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2016.08.005},
pmid = {27697430},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2016.08.005}
}
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
- The reliable worsening method produced a cut point only for amyloid PET.
- The specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of cognitively impaired versus young clinically normal (CN) methods labeled the most people abnormal and all gave similar cut points for tau PET, FDG PET, and cortical thickness.
- Cut points defined using the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus age-matched CN method labeled fewer people abnormal.
- In the future, we will use a single cut point for amyloid PET (standardized uptake value ratio, 1.42; centiloid, 19) based on the reliable worsening cut point method.
- We will base lenient cut points for tau PET, FDG PET, and cortical thickness on the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus young CN method and base conservative cut points on the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus age-matched CN method.
Why it matters
This paper describes methods for defining imaging biomarker cut points for brain aging and Alzheimer's disease, including a proposed cut point for amyloid PET. It does not test a treatment or cure, but aims to standardize how imaging biomarkers are interpreted.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 56/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (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 | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 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 | 6 / 7 | Cited 938 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 78.2 citations a year over 12 year(s) since 2016 |
| Impact for its field and year | 5 / 6 | Cited 36.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 5 / 6 | Cited by 106 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 4 / 4 | Cited 390 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 4 / 4 | Last-listed author Ronald Carl Petersen: h-index 209 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | Mayo Clinic: institution h-index 1,606 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27697430) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 56 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.08.005
- PubMed: 27697430
- Original source →
- Free full text: Alzheimer s & Dementia →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 36.
Later studies that cite this one
106 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “machine”
835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “machine”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.