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.

48/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Objective To determine whether the Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia conversion-related pattern (ADCRP) on [ 18 F]FDG PET can serve as a valid predictor for the development of AD dementia, the individual expression of the ADCRP (subject score) and its prognostic value were examined in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and biologically defined AD. Methods A total of 269 patients with available [ 18 F]FDG PET, [ 18 F]AV-45 PET, phosphorylated and total tau in CSF, and neurofilament light chain in plasma were included. Following the AT(N) classification scheme, where AD is defined biologically by in vivo biomarkers of β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition ("A") and pathologic tau ("T"), patients were categorized to the A-T-, A+T-, A+T+ (AD), and A-T+ groups. Results The mean subject score of the ADCRP was significantly higher in the A+T+ group compared to each of the other group (all p p > 0.1). Within the A+T+ group, the subject score of ADCRP was a significant predictor of conversion to dementia (hazard ratio, 2.02 per z score increase; p Conclusions The ADCRP is a valuable biomarker of neurodegeneration in patients with MCI and biologically defined AD. It shows great potential for stratifying the risk and estimating the time to conversion to dementia in patients with MCI and underlying AD (A+T+). Classification of evidence This study provides Class I evidence that [ 18 F]FDG PET predicts the development of AD dementia in individuals with MCI and underlying AD as defined by the AT(N) framework.

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

APA 7th

Blazhenets, G., Frings, L., Ma, Y., Sörensen, A., Eidelberg, D., Wiltfang, J., et al. (2021). Validation of the Alzheimer Disease Dementia Conversion-Related Pattern as an ATN Biomarker of Neurodegeneration. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000011521

Vancouver

Blazhenets G, Frings L, Ma Y, Sörensen A, Eidelberg D, Wiltfang J, et al. Validation of the Alzheimer Disease Dementia Conversion-Related Pattern as an ATN Biomarker of Neurodegeneration. Neurology. 2021. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000011521. PMID: 33408150.

BibTeX

@article{blazhenets2021-33408150,
  author  = {Blazhenets, G. and Frings, L. and Ma, Y. and Sörensen, A. and Eidelberg, D. and Wiltfang, J. and Meyer, P. T. and {Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
  title   = {{Validation of the Alzheimer Disease Dementia Conversion-Related Pattern as an ATN Biomarker of Neurodegeneration}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000011521},
  pmid    = {33408150},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000011521}
}

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 8 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.

Key findings

Results The mean subject score of the ADCRP was significantly higher in the A+T+ group compared to each of the other group (all p p > 0.1).
Within the A+T+ group, the subject score of ADCRP was a significant predictor of conversion to dementia (hazard ratio, 2.02 per z score increase; p Conclusions The ADCRP is a valuable biomarker of neurodegeneration in patients with MCI and biologically defined AD.

Why it matters

In 269 patients with mild cognitive impairment, a brain scan pattern called ADCRP predicted conversion to dementia among those with biological Alzheimer's disease (A+T+). It is proposed as a marker of neurodegeneration for estimating risk and time to conversion, not as a treatment.

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

Study details

Participants269
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 48/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / 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, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 64 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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	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	269 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	— / 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	1 / 6	Cited by 1 other studies in this library
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
Multi-centre collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33408150)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	31 / 64	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 64 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100.
Total	48 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

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 16.

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also tagged “cerebrospinal”

822 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cerebrospinal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 822 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →