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.

56/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Aims To evaluate the impact of amyloid PET imaging on diagnosis and patient management in a multicenter, randomized, controlled study. Methods Physicians identified patients seeking a diagnosis for mild cognitive impairment or dementia, possibly due to Alzheimer disease (AD), and recorded a working diagnosis and a management plan. The patients underwent florbetapir PET scanning and were randomized to either immediate or delayed (1-year) feedback regarding amyloid status. At the 3-month visit, the physician updated the diagnosis and recorded a summary of the actual patient management since the post-scan visit. The study examined the impact of immediate versus delayed feedback on patient diagnosis/management at 3 and 12 months. Results A total of 618 subjects were randomized (1:1) to immediate or delayed feedback arms, and 602 subjects completed the 3-month primary endpoint visit. A higher proportion of patients in the immediate feedback arm showed a change in diagnosis compared to the controls (32.6 vs. 6.4%; p = 0.0001). Similarly, a higher proportion of patients receiving immediate feedback had a change in management plan (68 vs. 55.5%; p Conclusion Knowledge of the amyloid status affects the diagnosis and alters patient management.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: High

The record lists 618 participants. The study concludes that knowledge of amyloid status affects diagnosis and alters patient management, but it reports no treatment, cure, or prevention. Reported effect size: 6.4%; 55.5%.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Pontecorvo, M. J., Siderowf, A., Dubois, B., Doraiswamy, P. M., Frisoni, G. B., Grundman, M., et al. (2017). Effectiveness of Florbetapir PET Imaging in Changing Patient Management. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. https://doi.org/10.1159/000478007

Vancouver

Pontecorvo MJ, Siderowf A, Dubois B, Doraiswamy PM, Frisoni GB, Grundman M, et al. Effectiveness of Florbetapir PET Imaging in Changing Patient Management. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. 2017. doi:10.1159/000478007. PMID: 28787712.

BibTeX

@article{pontecorvo2017-28787712,
  author  = {Pontecorvo, M. J. and Siderowf, A. and Dubois, B. and Doraiswamy, P. M. and Frisoni, G. B. and Grundman, M. and Nobili, F. and others},
  title   = {{Effectiveness of Florbetapir PET Imaging in Changing Patient Management}},
  journal = {Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1159/000478007},
  pmid    = {28787712},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000478007}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 618 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “6.4%; 55.5%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

The study examined the impact of immediate versus delayed feedback on patient diagnosis/management at 3 and 12 months.
Results A total of 618 subjects were randomized (1:1) to immediate or delayed feedback arms, and 602 subjects completed the 3-month primary endpoint visit.
A higher proportion of patients in the immediate feedback arm showed a change in diagnosis compared to the controls (32.6 vs. 6.4%; p = 0.0001).

Why it matters

In a multicenter randomized controlled study, a higher proportion of patients who received immediate florbetapir PET amyloid feedback showed a change in diagnosis compared with controls (32.6% versus 6.4%) and a higher proportion had a change in management plan (68% versus 55.5%). The study concludes that knowledge of amyloid status affects diagnosis and alters patient management, but it reports no treatment, cure, or prevention.

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

Study details

Participants618
Effect size6.4%; 55.5%
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 56/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders: journal h-index 149 (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	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	618 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	1 / 2	Randomized (as stated in the record)
Times cited	4 / 7	Cited 46 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	4.2 citations a year over 11 year(s) since 2017
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 4.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 8 other studies in this library
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 13 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	4 / 4	Last-listed author Mark A. Mintun: h-index 131 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University of California San Diego: institution h-index 1,852 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 13 institution(s) in 4 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28787712)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	56 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 18.

Later studies that cite this one

8 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also in Biomarkers

147 studies in the library are filed under Biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Biomarkers hub.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →