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.

47/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

The Centiloid method demonstrates strong intertracer and interscanner harmonization when standardized to the 11C-Pittsburgh compound B reference, with high correlation (r2 > 0.9) across 18F-labeled tracers, including florbetapir, flutemetamol, and florbetaben. Most articles identified a Centiloid threshold between 20 and 25 Centiloids as indicative of significant amyloid pathology. Implementation of the Centiloid framework improved comparability across clinical trials and longitudinal studies, facilitating integration into the AT(N) research framework. The Centiloid scale represents a critical advancement in quantitative amyloid PET imaging, providing a universal reference that enhances data reproducibility, cross-trial comparisons, and clinical decision-making. Continued work is needed to expand standardization for novel tracers and hybrid imaging systems, ensuring full clinical translation of this metric in dementia imaging.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Moderate

This is a follow-up (cohort) study. This review reports that the Centiloid scale harmonizes amyloid PET measurements across tracers and scanners, with most articles identifying a threshold of 20 to 25 Centiloids as indicating significant amyloid pathology. It is a standardization tool for research and clinical decision-making, not a treatment or cure.

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

Doroudinia, A., York, B., & Colletti, P. M. (2026). Quantitative Amyloid Brain Imaging: A Literature Review of the Centiloid Scale in Alzheimer Disease Evaluation. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.125.271678

Vancouver

Doroudinia A, York B, Colletti PM. Quantitative Amyloid Brain Imaging: A Literature Review of the Centiloid Scale in Alzheimer Disease Evaluation. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology. 2026. doi:10.2967/jnmt.125.271678. PMID: 41667284.

BibTeX

@article{doroudinia2026-41667284,
  author  = {Doroudinia, Abtin and York, Benjamin and Colletti, Patrick M.},
  title   = {{Quantitative Amyloid Brain Imaging: A Literature Review of the Centiloid Scale in Alzheimer Disease Evaluation}},
  journal = {Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.2967/jnmt.125.271678},
  pmid    = {41667284},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.125.271678}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
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 moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. 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 Centiloid method demonstrates strong intertracer and interscanner harmonization when standardized to the 11C-Pittsburgh compound B reference, with high correlation (r2 > 0.9) across 18F-labeled tracers, including florbetapir, flutemetamol, and florbetaben.
Most articles identified a Centiloid threshold between 20 and 25 Centiloids as indicative of significant amyloid pathology.
Implementation of the Centiloid framework improved comparability across clinical trials and longitudinal studies, facilitating integration into the AT(N) research framework.
The Centiloid scale represents a critical advancement in quantitative amyloid PET imaging, providing a universal reference that enhances data reproducibility, cross-trial comparisons, and clinical decision-making.
Continued work is needed to expand standardization for novel tracers and hybrid imaging systems, ensuring full clinical translation of this metric in dementia imaging.

Why it matters

This review reports that the Centiloid scale harmonizes amyloid PET measurements across tracers and scanners, with most articles identifying a threshold of 20 to 25 Centiloids as indicating significant amyloid pathology. It is a standardization tool for research and clinical decision-making, not a treatment or cure.

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

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 47/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology: journal h-index 51 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 2 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	1.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 9.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 2 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Patrick M. Colletti: h-index 50 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University of Southern California: institution h-index 1,521 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41667284)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	47 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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 21.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “machine”

834 studies in the library carry the topic tag “machine”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 834 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →