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.

16/100

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Plain-language summary

This study investigated whether WM measures derived from amyloid-PET are associated with AD biomarkers and to determine whether they offer added diagnostic and prognostic value beyond established biomarkers. Results No significant associations were found between NAWM, WMH SUVR and AD-specific biomarkers. However, WMH SUVR was positively associated with MMSE (P = 0.0001) and NAWM SUVR was negatively associated with TLV (P = 0.005) and with NfL (P = 0.001). Lower NAWM SUVR was associated with higher lobar (P = 0.025) and non-lobar CMB (P = 0.016). In models predicting annual cognitive decline in the tau subsample adding NAWM SUVR to models including amyloid and tau improved model fit significantly (P = 0.044). Conclusion Results suggest that amyloid-PET uptake in WMH and NAWM reflects myelin integrity and that NAWM SUVR may capture early disease-related changes, while WMH SUVR may suggest damage linked to baseline cognition.

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

APA 7th

Harput, E., Boccalini, C., Scheffler, M., Lovblad, K., Ashton, N. J., Zetterberg, H., et al. (2026). Mapping Amyloid-PET Uptake in the White Matter in Alzheimer’s Disease. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10277565/v1

Vancouver

Harput E, Boccalini C, Scheffler M, Lovblad K, Ashton NJ, Zetterberg H, et al. Mapping Amyloid-PET Uptake in the White Matter in Alzheimer’s Disease. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10277565/v1.

BibTeX

@article{harput2026-7b7b99fe,
  author  = {Harput, E. and Boccalini, C. and Scheffler, M. and Lovblad, K. and Ashton, N. J. and Zetterberg, H. and Hansson, O. and Lalive, H. M. and others},
  title   = {{Mapping Amyloid-PET Uptake in the White Matter in Alzheimer’s Disease}},
  journal = {Research Square},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10277565/v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10277565/v1}
}

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 320 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. 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

This study investigated whether WM measures derived from amyloid-PET are associated with AD biomarkers and to determine whether they offer added diagnostic and prognostic value beyond established biomarkers.
Results No significant associations were found between NAWM, WMH SUVR and AD-specific biomarkers.
However, WMH SUVR was positively associated with MMSE (P = 0.0001) and NAWM SUVR was negatively associated with TLV (P = 0.005) and with NfL (P = 0.001).
Lower NAWM SUVR was associated with higher lobar (P = 0.025) and non-lobar CMB (P = 0.016).
In models predicting annual cognitive decline in the tau subsample adding NAWM SUVR to models including amyloid and tau improved model fit significantly (P = 0.044).

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

Study details

Participants320
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 16/100

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 32 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 20 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 32 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	2 / 10	Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
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	4 / 10	Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	320 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	1 / 2	Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	20 / 62	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 20 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 32 out of 100.
Total	32 / 100	Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

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.

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

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging from nearby years

Also tagged “18f”

318 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 318 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 →