ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2025
Comparison of visual and analytic methods of Alzheimer's disease pathologic staging.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The clinical Alzheimer's disease spectrum classified in the A/T/N framework withEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Observational
- CNS-selective plasma p-tau217 accurately captures Alzheimer's disease pathology and progression.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Comparison of visual and analytic methods of Alzheimer's disease pathologic staging.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMethods for standardizing positron emission tomography (PET) indices of β-amyloid (Aβ) (Centiloid [CL]) and tau (CenTauRz, CTRz) burden facilitates direct comparisons across radiotracers and supports in vivo biologic staging per the AT(N) (Aβ [A], tau [T], and neurodegeneration [N]) framework. In lieu of post mortem examination, visual interpretation is the most sensitive indicator of these pathologies. Here, we compared the performance of analytic and visual methods of AT(N) staging.
methodsA total of 149 participants were imaged using Pittsburgh Compound B ([
resultsCL quantification showed excellent agreement with visual Aβ staging, whereas T status derived from the CTRz pipeline was less sensitive to the heterogeneity of tau pathologic presentations indicated visually. Poor concordance was observed between visual and analytic N status. DISCUSSION: A combination of visual and analytic information is optimal for accurate biologic staging of AD. HIGHLIGHTS: The Centiloid method showed strong agreement with visual assessment for β-amyloid (Aβ) status. The CenTauR method was less sensitive than visual assessment for tau status. Heterogeneous tau deposition complicates tau standardization methods. Cortical thickness might not be the optimal index of neurodegeneration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.