ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
Added Value of Amyloid PET Quantification with the Centiloid Scale in Clinical Practice.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gut Microbiome Changes in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease.Nutrients · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe objectives for amyloid brain PET/CT and PET/MRI fusion images are to determine the agreement between visual interpretations of amyloid PET and to compare the results of visual interpretation with quantitative analysis as measured by the Centiloid (CL) scale. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred sixty-seven clinical amyloid brain PET/CT scans were reviewed by 3 readers blinded to the original reports. Readers interpreted the amyloid PET scans as negative (0), positive (1), or indeterminate (2) for amyloid deposition. For quantitative analysis, 2 additional readers analyzed amyloid PET images using MIMNeuro to generate CL scores and regional standardized uptake ratios. Reader agreement was determined for visual and quantitative assessment. Using positive scan cutoffs of CL ≥ 40, we determined visual assessment-versus-quantitative assessment for scans consistently interpreted as positive by all 3 readers and for each reader.
resultsFifty-three scans (31.74%) were rated amyloid-positive by all readers, while 62 scans (37.13%) were rated as amyloid-negative by all readers. The remaining 52 scans had inconsistent ratings with an agreement rate of 69.46%. Most (99/167; 59.28%) scans had CL scores above the CL-positive cutoff (CL ≥ 40), and 47/167 (28.14%) were CL-negative scans (CL <10). The lowest CL score to achieve visual positivity among all 3 readers was 57, while the lowest CL score to receive at least 1 indeterminate score was 11. The readers had a high degree of interreader reliability when rating scans as either positive (κ = 0.62) or negative (κ = 0.66) but were inconsistent when rating scans as indeterminate (κ = 0.17). Optimal cut-points were CL <3.6 for consistent negative and CL ≥28.8 for consistent visual positivity.
conclusionsGiven the emergence of antiamyloid monoclonal therapies for early-stage Alzheimer disease, reliable detection of amyloidosis is critical for patient care. This study suggests that visual reads of amyloid PET may be insensitive when amyloidosis is milder but are spread across multiple regions (CL ranging from 40 to 59). Quantification of amyloid PET using the CL scale may help guide treatment of patients with mild amyloidosis who are under consideration for antiamyloid disease-modifying therapeutics.
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.