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.

75/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 75 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Introduction Amyloid-lowering antibodies are associated with neuroanatomical volume changes. This study aims to disentangle the contributions of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and amyloid clearance to these changes. Methods Data from the GRADUATE I and II trials of gantenerumab in early Alzheimer's disease were analyzed. Participants were grouped as placebo, gantenerumab-treated without ARIA, or gantenerumab-treated with ARIA. Results Gantenerumab treatment was associated with greater parenchymal volume reduction than placebo, with no difference between ARIA and non-ARIA groups. The ARIA group exhibited greater ventricular enlargement which was offset by reduced external cerebrospinal fluid space expansion. Greater amyloid removal correlated with greater volume reduction, although volume changes also occurred in white matter, where amyloid is minimal. Furthermore, the ARIA group showed a flatter relationship between ventricular expansion and clinical decline. Discussion ARIA are not associated with long-term parenchymal reduction; rather, they are linked to a fluid shift from the external space to the ventricles. Amyloid removal correlates with parenchymal changes, but white matter changes suggest additional mechanisms beyond local clearance. Neither phenomenon was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Trial registration number NCT03444870 and NCT03443973.

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

APA 7th

Tonietto, M., Silvestri, E., Belder, C. R. S., Barkhof, F., Fox, N. C., Smith, J., et al. (2026). Volume change with gantenerumab: Impact of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities and amyloid removal. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71749

Vancouver

Tonietto M, Silvestri E, Belder CRS, Barkhof F, Fox NC, Smith J, et al. Volume change with gantenerumab: Impact of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities and amyloid removal. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2026. doi:10.1002/alz.71749. PMID: 42598748.

BibTeX

@article{tonietto2026-42598748,
  author  = {Tonietto, M. and Silvestri, E. and Belder, C. R. S. and Barkhof, F. and Fox, N. C. and Smith, J. and Klein, G.},
  title   = {{Volume change with gantenerumab: Impact of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities and amyloid removal}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz.71749},
  pmid    = {42598748},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71749}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
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 low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. 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

Introduction Amyloid-lowering antibodies are associated with neuroanatomical volume changes.
Results Gantenerumab treatment was associated with greater parenchymal volume reduction than placebo, with no difference between ARIA and non-ARIA groups.
Discussion ARIA are not associated with long-term parenchymal reduction; rather, they are linked to a fluid shift from the external space to the ventricles.
Neither phenomenon was associated with worse clinical outcomes.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 75/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a large phase 3 trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 46 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 75 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	11 / 12	A large phase 3 trial (from PubMed type “Clinical Trial, Phase III”)
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	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	3 / 3	Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomized / blinded	1 / 2	Randomized (as stated in the record)
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	2 / 3	PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42598748)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	46 / 61	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 75 out of 100.
Total	75 / 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 Treatments from nearby years

Also tagged “volume-changes”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “volume-changes”; 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 Treatments

Where this led: Gantenerumab on the treatments page — its current status, approval date, side-effect rate and list price, kept up to date.

See all studies in Treatments →