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 65 out of 100. Mild cognitive impairment

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Background To systematically examine the clinical utility of tau-PET and Braak-staging as prognostic markers of future cognitive decline in older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Methods In this longitudinal study, we included 396 cognitively normal to dementia subjects with 18 F-Florbetapir/ 18 F-Florbetaben-amyloid-PET, 18 F-Flortaucipir-tau-PET and ~ 2-year cognitive follow-up. Annual change rates in global cognition (i.e., MMSE, ADAS13) and episodic memory were calculated via linear-mixed models. We determined global amyloid-PET (Centiloid) plus global and Braak-stage-specific tau-PET SUVRs, which were stratified as positive( + )/negative( - ) at pre-established cut-offs, classifying subjects as Braak 0 /Braak I+ /Braak I-IV+ /Braak I-VI+ /Braak atypical+ . In bootstrapped linear regression, we assessed the predictive accuracy of global tau-PET SUVRs vs. Centiloid on subsequent cognitive decline. To test for independent tau vs. amyloid effects, analyses were further controlled for the contrary PET-tracer. Using ANCOVAs, we tested whether more advanced Braak-stage predicted accelerated future cognitive decline. All models were controlled for age, sex, education, diagnosis, and baseline cognition. Lastly, we determined Braak-stage-specific conversion risk to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. Results Baseline global tau-PET SUVRs explained more variance (partial R 2 ) in future cognitive decline than Centiloid across all cognitive tests (Cohen's d ~ 2, all tests p Conclusion Tau-PET and Braak-staging are highly predictive markers of future cognitive decline and may be promising single-modality estimates for prognostication of patient-specific progression risk in clinical settings.

Key findings

Why it matters

Tau-PET and Braak-staging were highly predictive of future cognitive decline in this group of 396 people followed for about 2 years. The authors describe tau-PET as a promising marker, but this is a prognostic tool for predicting decline, not a treatment or cure.

Study details

How this study scored 65/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 1 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 5 of 7; Citations per year 4 of 5; Impact for its field and year 4 of 6; Cited by studies here 3 of 6; Still being cited 3 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 62 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 65 of 100. Total 65 of 100.62 of the 96 points we could judge = 65 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 senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 62 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 65 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy)
Journal's citation record 1 / 4 Alzheimer s Research & Therapy: journal h-index 146 (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 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 396 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 5 / 7 Cited 156 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 4 / 5 22.3 citations a year over 7 year(s) since 2021
Impact for its field and year 4 / 6 Cited 13.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 3 / 6 Cited by 16 other studies in this library
Still being cited 3 / 4 Cited 99 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 1 / 3 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München: institution h-index 1,224 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34384484)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 62 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 62 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 65 out of 100.
Total 65 / 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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Biel, D., Brendel, M., Rubinski, A., Buerger, K., Janowitz, D., Dichgans, M., et al. (2021). Tau-PET and in vivo Braak-staging as prognostic markers of future cognitive decline in cognitively normal to demented individuals. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00880-x

Vancouver

Biel D, Brendel M, Rubinski A, Buerger K, Janowitz D, Dichgans M, et al. Tau-PET and in vivo Braak-staging as prognostic markers of future cognitive decline in cognitively normal to demented individuals. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2021. doi:10.1186/s13195-021-00880-x. PMID: 34384484.

BibTeX

@article{biel2021-34384484,
  author  = {Biel, D. and Brendel, M. and Rubinski, A. and Buerger, K. and Janowitz, D. and Dichgans, M. and Franzmeier, N.},
  title   = {{Tau-PET and in vivo Braak-staging as prognostic markers of future cognitive decline in cognitively normal to demented individuals}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1186/s13195-021-00880-x},
  pmid    = {34384484},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00880-x}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 31.

Later studies that cite this one

16 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Mild cognitive impairment

Similar studies

More on Mild cognitive impairment

See all studies in Mild cognitive impairment →