Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Unlabelled In this article, we describe an image analysis strategy with improved power for tracking longitudinal amyloid-β (Aβ) PET changes and evaluating Aβ-modifying treatments. Methods Our aims were to compare the power of template-based cerebellar, pontine, and cerebral white matter reference regions to track 24-mo florbetapir standardized uptake value (SUV) ratio (SUVR) changes; to relate those changes to 24-mo clinical declines; and to evaluate Aβ-modifying treatments in Aβ-positive (Aβ+) and Aβ-negative (Aβ-) patients with probable Alzheimer dementia (pAD), in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), in cognitively normal controls (NCs), and in cognitively normal apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) carriers and noncarriers. We used baseline and follow-up (∼24 mo) florbetapir PET scans from 332 Aβ+ and Aβ- subjects participating in the multicenter Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Each of the proposed analyses included 31 pAD patients, 187 MCI patients, and 114 NCs. Cerebral-to-white matter, cerebellar, and pontine SUVRs were characterized in terms of their longitudinal variability; their power to track longitudinal fibrillar Aβ increases in Aβ+ and Aβ- subgroups and cognitively normal APOE4 carriers and noncarriers; the sample sizes needed to detect attenuated accumulation of or clearance of fibrillar Aβ accumulation in randomized clinical trials; and their ability to relate 24-mo fibrillar Aβ increases to clinical declines. Results As predicted, cerebral-to-white matter SUVR changes were significantly less variable and had significantly greater power to detect 24-mo fibrillar Aβ increases and evaluate Aβ-modifying treatment effects in Aβ+ pAD, MCI, and NC subjects and cognitively normal APOE4 carriers. They were also distinguished by the ability to detect significant associations between 24-mo Aβ increases and clinical declines. Conclusion A cerebral white matter reference region may improve the power to track longitudinal fibrillar Aβ increases, to characterize their relationship to longitudinal clinical declines, and to evaluate Aβ-modifying treatments in randomized clinical trials.

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

APA 7th

Chen, K., Roontiva, A., Thiyyagura, P., Lee, W., Liu, X., Ayutyanont, N., et al. (2015). Improved power for characterizing longitudinal amyloid-β PET changes and evaluating amyloid-modifying treatments with a cerebral white matter reference region. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.149732

Vancouver

Chen K, Roontiva A, Thiyyagura P, Lee W, Liu X, Ayutyanont N, et al. Improved power for characterizing longitudinal amyloid-β PET changes and evaluating amyloid-modifying treatments with a cerebral white matter reference region. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2015. doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.149732. PMID: 25745091.

BibTeX

@article{chen2015-25745091,
  author  = {Chen, K. and Roontiva, A. and Thiyyagura, P. and Lee, W. and Liu, X. and Ayutyanont, N. and Protas, H. and Luo, J. L. and others},
  title   = {{Improved power for characterizing longitudinal amyloid-β PET changes and evaluating amyloid-modifying treatments with a cerebral white matter reference region}},
  journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine},
  year    = {2015},
  doi     = {10.2967/jnumed.114.149732},
  pmid    = {25745091},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.149732}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 62/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 38 of the 61 points it could be judged on, which is 62 of 100. Total 62 of 100.38 of the 61 points we could judge = 62 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 38 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
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 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
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 1 / 5 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 31 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 2 / 3 PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25745091)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 38 / 61 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100.
Total 62 / 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 Brain scans and imaging

Also tagged “evaluating”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “evaluating”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →