Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Exploring Centiloid Robustness: Impact of Sample Size and Image Resolution on Centiloid Conversion Accuracy
Jiaxiuxiu Zhang, David N Soleimani-Meigooni, Robert Koeppe, Sarah Ackley, Daniel R Schonhaut, Zoe E Lin, Piyush Maiti, Claire Yballa et al.. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2025-12-03
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
In the smallest required sample of 15 cAD and 10 Aβ-negative participants, conversion error was 1.7 Centiloids at 25 Centiloids and 3.4 Centiloids at 100 Centiloids. Error decreased to 1.0 Centiloid at 25 Centiloids and 2.0 Centiloids at 100 Centiloids, when including 50 cAD and 30 Aβ-negative participants. Lower image resolution was associated with a systematic difference in Centiloids, especially in highly positive [11C]PiB scans: a scan estimated as 100 Centiloids in high resolution was quantified as 94.2 Centiloids and 84.9 Centiloids at medium and low resolution. When a [11C]PiB scan was quantified as 25 Centiloids in its high resolution, lowering its resolution resulted in reduced values of 23.5 Centiloids and 20.6 Centiloids for medium and low resolution, respectively. Similar trends were observed for [18F]florbetaben and [18F]florbetapir scans. A relatively accurate SUV ratio-to-Centiloid conversion equation for level 2 analyses can still be achieved with a minimally required datasets. Increasing the number of cAD participants reduced error at higher values, whereas adding Aβ-negative participants had little effect. Image resolution significantly impacts Centiloids in highly positive scans and should be considered when interpreting data acquired with different settings. Errors remain minimal at 25 Centiloids, the typical cutoff for determining Aβ positivity.
Key findings
- In the smallest required sample of 15 cAD and 10 Aβ-negative participants, conversion error was 1.7 Centiloids at 25 Centiloids and 3.4 Centiloids at 100 Centiloids.
- Error decreased to 1.0 Centiloid at 25 Centiloids and 2.0 Centiloids at 100 Centiloids, when including 50 cAD and 30 Aβ-negative participants.
- Lower image resolution was associated with a systematic difference in Centiloids, especially in highly positive [11C]PiB scans: a scan estimated as 100 Centiloids in high resolution was quantified as 94.2 Centiloids and 84.9 Centiloids at medium and low resolution.
- When a [11C]PiB scan was quantified as 25 Centiloids in its high resolution, lowering its resolution resulted in reduced values of 23.5 Centiloids and 20.6 Centiloids for medium and low resolution, respectively.
- Similar trends were observed for [18F]florbetaben and [18F]florbetapir scans.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants157
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 157 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 41130790) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 29 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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.
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
Zhang, J., Soleimani-Meigooni, D. N., Koeppe, R., Ackley, S., Schonhaut, D. R., Lin, Z. E., et al. (2025). Exploring Centiloid Robustness: Impact of Sample Size and Image Resolution on Centiloid Conversion Accuracy. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.125.270607
Vancouver
Zhang J, Soleimani-Meigooni DN, Koeppe R, Ackley S, Schonhaut DR, Lin ZE, et al. Exploring Centiloid Robustness: Impact of Sample Size and Image Resolution on Centiloid Conversion Accuracy. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2025. doi:10.2967/jnumed.125.270607. PMID: 41130790.
BibTeX
@article{zhang2025-41130790,
author = {Zhang, Jiaxiuxiu and Soleimani-Meigooni, David N and Koeppe, Robert and Ackley, Sarah and Schonhaut, Daniel R and Lin, Zoe E and Maiti, Piyush and Yballa, Claire and others},
title = {{Exploring Centiloid Robustness: Impact of Sample Size and Image Resolution on Centiloid Conversion Accuracy}},
journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.2967/jnumed.125.270607},
pmid = {41130790},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.125.270607}
}