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.

67/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

Inferior cerebellar gray matter SUV did not differ on the basis of diagnosis and amyloid-β status, cross-sectionally and over time. [ 18 F]MK6240 uptake significantly differed between CUY and CU adults in the putamen or pallidum (affecting ∼75% of the region) and in the Braak II region (affecting ∼35%). Changes in meningeal and putamen or pallidum SUVRs did not significantly differ from zero, nor did they vary across diagnostic groups. We did not observe significant correlations between longitudinal changes in age-related or meningeal off-target retention and changes in target regions, whereas changes in all target regions were strongly correlated. Inferior cerebellar gray matter was similar across diagnostic groups cross-sectionally and stable over time and thus was deemed a suitable reference region for quantification. Despite not being visually perceptible, [ 18 F]MK6240 has age-related retention in subcortical regions, at a much lower magnitude but topographically colocalized with significant off-target signal of the first-generation tau tracers. The lack of correlation between changes in age-related or meningeal and target retention suggests little influence of possible off-target signals on longitudinal tracer quantification. Nevertheless, the age-related retention in the Braak II region needs to be further investigated. Future postmortem studies should elucidate the source of the newly reported age-related [ 18 F]MK6240 signal, and in vivo studies should further explore its impact on tracer quantification.

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

APA 7th

Tissot, C., Servaes, S., Lussier, F. Z., Ferrari-Souza, J. P., Therriault, J., Ferreira, P. C. L., et al. (2023). The Association of Age-Related and Off-Target Retention with Longitudinal Quantification of [18F]MK6240 Tau PET in Target Regions. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.264434

Vancouver

Tissot C, Servaes S, Lussier FZ, Ferrari-Souza JP, Therriault J, Ferreira PCL, et al. The Association of Age-Related and Off-Target Retention with Longitudinal Quantification of [18F]MK6240 Tau PET in Target Regions. Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2023. doi:10.2967/jnumed.122.264434. PMID: 36396455.

BibTeX

@article{tissot2023-36396455,
  author  = {Tissot, C. and Servaes, S. and Lussier, F. Z. and Ferrari-Souza, J. P. and Therriault, J. and Ferreira, P. C. L. and Bezgin, G. and Bellaver, B. and others},
  title   = {{The Association of Age-Related and Off-Target Retention with Longitudinal Quantification of [18F]MK6240 Tau PET in Target Regions}},
  journal = {Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.2967/jnumed.122.264434},
  pmid    = {36396455},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.122.264434}
}

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: 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 lists 125 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 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

Inferior cerebellar gray matter SUV did not differ on the basis of diagnosis and amyloid-β status, cross-sectionally and over time. [ 18 F]MK6240 uptake significantly differed between CUY and CU adults in the putamen or pallidum (affecting ∼75% of the region) and in the Braak II region (affecting ∼35%).
Changes in meningeal and putamen or pallidum SUVRs did not significantly differ from zero, nor did they vary across diagnostic groups.
We did not observe significant correlations between longitudinal changes in age-related or meningeal off-target retention and changes in target regions, whereas changes in all target regions were strongly correlated.
Inferior cerebellar gray matter was similar across diagnostic groups cross-sectionally and stable over time and thus was deemed a suitable reference region for quantification.
Despite not being visually perceptible, [ 18 F]MK6240 has age-related retention in subcortical regions, at a much lower magnitude but topographically colocalized with significant off-target signal of the first-generation tau tracers.

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

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Participants125
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 67/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / 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, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
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	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	2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	125 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	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36396455)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	39 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100.
Total	67 / 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.

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 “retention”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “retention”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 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 →