Home › Research › Tau biomarkers
Discordance and Concordance Between Cerebrospinal and [18F]FDG-PET Biomarkers in Assessing Atypical and Early-Onset AD Dementia Cases
Quispialaya KM, Therriault J, Aliaga A, Zimmermann M, Fernandez-Arias J, Lussier F, Massarweh G, Pascoal T et al.. Neurology, 2022-10-20
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background and objectives To assess the concordance and discordance between the core Alzheimer disease (AD) CSF biomarkers and [ 18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET patterns evaluated clinically in memory clinic patients who meet appropriate use criteria for AD biomarker investigations. Methods We retrospectively assessed participants with atypical and/or early-onset dementia evaluated at a tertiary care memory clinic. All individuals underwent CSF evaluations for Aβ42, phosphorylated tau (P-tau181) and total tau, and brain [ 18 F]FDG-PET. [ 18 F]FDG-PET data were visually interpreted by 2 nuclear medicine experts as being consistent with AD or non-AD.
Key findings
- Methods We retrospectively assessed participants with atypical and/or early-onset dementia evaluated at a tertiary care memory clinic.
- All individuals underwent CSF evaluations for Aβ42, phosphorylated tau (P-tau181) and total tau, and brain [ 18 F]FDG-PET. [ 18 F]FDG-PET data were visually interpreted by 2 nuclear medicine experts as being consistent with AD or non-AD.
- CSF biomarker results were similarly grouped into AD biomarker positive/negative.
- Contingency tables and Kappa coefficients were used to establish the level of agreement and disagreement between CSF and [ 18 F]FDG-PET results in all individuals.
Why it matters
This study looked at how often spinal fluid biomarkers and FDG-PET scans agree or disagree when evaluating atypical and early-onset dementia cases. It is a diagnostic comparison and does not test any treatment or cure.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 42/100
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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | 4 / 4 | Neurology: journal h-index 525 (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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 | 2 / 7 | Cited 13 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 2.2 citations a year over 6 year(s) since 2022 |
| Impact for its field and year | 2 / 6 | Cited 1.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 2 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 10 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Pedro Rosa‐Neto: h-index 89 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | University of Pittsburgh: institution h-index 1,470 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 2 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36266044) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 42 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000201198
- PubMed: 36266044
- Original source →
- Free full text: PubMed Central →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
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
Quispialaya, K. M., Therriault, J., Aliaga, A., Zimmermann, M., Fernandez-Arias, J., Lussier, F., et al. (2022). Discordance and Concordance Between Cerebrospinal and [18F]FDG-PET Biomarkers in Assessing Atypical and Early-Onset AD Dementia Cases. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000201198
Vancouver
Quispialaya KM, Therriault J, Aliaga A, Zimmermann M, Fernandez-Arias J, Lussier F, et al. Discordance and Concordance Between Cerebrospinal and [18F]FDG-PET Biomarkers in Assessing Atypical and Early-Onset AD Dementia Cases. Neurology. 2022. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000201198. PMID: 36266044.
BibTeX
@article{quispialaya2022-36266044,
author = {Quispialaya, K. M. and Therriault, J. and Aliaga, A. and Zimmermann, M. and Fernandez-Arias, J. and Lussier, F. and Massarweh, G. and Pascoal, T. and others},
title = {{Discordance and Concordance Between Cerebrospinal and [18F]FDG-PET Biomarkers in Assessing Atypical and Early-Onset AD Dementia Cases}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000201198},
pmid = {36266044},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000201198}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 16.
Later studies that cite this one
2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.