Home › Research › Biomarkers
Racial and Ethnic Differences in Amyloid PET Positivity in Individuals With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia
Justin Romanoff, Constantine G. Gatsonis, Andrew March, Charles S. Apgar, Barry Alan Siegel, Consuelo Hopkins Wilkins, Ilana F. Gareen, Lucy Hanna et al.. Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), 2025-04-18
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Data from 17 107 individuals (321 Asian, 635 Black, 829 Hispanic, and 15 322 White) with MCI or dementia and amyloid PET were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022. The median (range) age of participants was 75 (65-105) years; 8769 participants (51.3%) were female and 8338 (48.7%) were male. In the optimal 1:1 matching analysis (n = 3154), White participants had a greater proportion of positive amyloid PET scans compared with Asian participants (181 of 313; 57.8%; 95% CI, 52.3-63.2 vs 142 of 313; 45.4%; 95% CI, 39.9-50.9, respectively; P = .001) and Hispanic participants (482 of 780; 61.8%; 95% CI, 58.3-65.1 vs 425 of 780; 54.5%; 95% CI, 51.0-58.0, respectively; P = .003) but not Black participants (359 of 615; 58.4%; 95% CI, 54.4-62.2 vs 333 of 615; 54.1%; 95% CI, 50.2-58.0, respectively; P = .13). In the adjusted model, the odds of having a positive amyloid PET scan were lower for Asian participants (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.59; P < .001), Black participants (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84; P < .001), and Hispanic participants (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .001) compared with White participants. Conclusions and Relevance: Racial and ethnic differences found in amyloid PET positivity among individuals with MCI and dementia in this study may indicate differences in underlying etiology of cognitive impairment and guide future treatment and prevention approaches.
Key findings
- Data from 17 107 individuals (321 Asian, 635 Black, 829 Hispanic, and 15 322 White) with MCI or dementia and amyloid PET were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022.
- The median (range) age of participants was 75 (65-105) years; 8769 participants (51.3%) were female and 8338 (48.7%) were male.
- In the optimal 1:1 matching analysis (n = 3154), White participants had a greater proportion of positive amyloid PET scans compared with Asian participants (181 of 313; 57.8%; 95% CI, 52.3-63.2 vs 142 of 313; 45.4%; 95% CI, 39.9-50.9, respectively; P = .001) and Hispanic participants (482 of 780; 61.8%; 95% CI, 58.3-65.1 vs 425 of 780; 54.5%; 95% CI, 51.0-58.0, respectively; P = .003) but not Black participants (359 of 615; 58.4%; 95% CI, 54.4-62.2 vs 333 of 615; 54.1%; 95% CI, 50.2-58.0, respectively; P = .13).
- In the adjusted model, the odds of having a positive amyloid PET scan were lower for Asian participants (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.59; P < .001), Black participants (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84; P < .001), and Hispanic participants (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .001) compared with White participants.
- Conclusions and Relevance: Racial and ethnic differences found in amyloid PET positivity among individuals with MCI and dementia in this study may indicate differences in underlying etiology of cognitive impairment and guide future treatment and prevention approaches.
Why it matters
Among people with MCI or dementia, Asian, Black, and Hispanic participants had lower odds of a positive amyloid PET scan than White participants in adjusted analyses. The authors suggest these differences may indicate different underlying causes of cognitive impairment and could guide future treatment and prevention approaches.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants3,154
- Effect size51.3%; 48.7%; 57.8%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 49/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, so that was left out: it earned 47 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 49 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 3,154 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 0 / 6 | Cited 0.0× 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 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author María C. Carrillo: h-index 78 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: institution h-index 1,674 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 47 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 49 out of 100. |
| Total | 49 / 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).
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
Romanoff, J., Gatsonis, C. G., March, A., Apgar, C. S., Siegel, B. A., Wilkins, C. H., et al. (2025). Racial and Ethnic Differences in Amyloid PET Positivity in Individuals With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia. Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). https://doi.org/10.17615/aekj-fb35
Vancouver
Romanoff J, Gatsonis CG, March A, Apgar CS, Siegel BA, Wilkins CH, et al. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Amyloid PET Positivity in Individuals With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia. Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). 2025. doi:10.17615/aekj-fb35.
BibTeX
@article{romanoff2025-d1b2aa44,
author = {Romanoff, Justin and Gatsonis, Constantine G. and March, Andrew and Apgar, Charles S. and Siegel, Barry Alan and Wilkins, Consuelo Hopkins and Gareen, Ilana F. and Hanna, Lucy and others},
title = {{Racial and Ethnic Differences in Amyloid PET Positivity in Individuals With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia}},
journal = {Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.17615/aekj-fb35},
url = {https://doi.org/10.17615/aekj-fb35}
}
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “classification”
835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.