Cited by 88Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus

Nonlinear Association Between Cerebrospinal Fluid and Florbetapir F-18 β-Amyloid Measures Across the Spectrum of Alzheimer Disease

Open access
Toledo, Jon B., Bjerke, Maria, Da, Xiao, Landau, Susan M., Foster, Norman L, Jagust, William, Jack, Clifford, Weiner, Michael +3 more·2015·JAMA Neurology

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and positron emission tomographic (PET) amyloid biomarkers have been proposed for the detection of Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology in living patients and for the tracking of longitudinal changes, but the relation between biomarkers needs further study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between CSF and PET amyloid biomarkers (cross-sectional and longitudinal measures) and compare the cutoffs for these measures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal clinical cohort study from 2005 to 2014 including 820 participants with at least 1 florbetapir F-18 (hereafter referred to as simply florbetapir)-PET scan and at least 1 CSF β-amyloid 1-42 (Aβ1-42) sample obtained within 30 days of each other (501 participants had a second PET scan after 2 years, including 150 participants with CSF Aβ1-42 measurements). Data were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four different PET scans processing pipelines from 2 different laboratories were compared. The PET cutoff values were established using a mixture-modeling approach, and different mathematical models were applied to define the association between CSF and PET amyloid measures. RESULTS: The values of the CSF Aβ1-42 samples and florbetapir-PET scans showed a nonlinear association (R2 = 0.48-0.66), with the strongest association for values in the middle range. The presence of a larger dynamic range of florbetapir-PET scan values in the higher range compared with the CSF Aβ1-42 plateau explained the differences in correlation with cognition (R2 = 0.36 and R2 = 0.25, respectively). The APOE genotype significantly modified the association between both biomarkers. The PET cutoff values derived from an unsupervised classifier converged with previous PET cutoff values and the established CSF Aβ1-42 cutoff levels. There was no association between longitudinal Aβ1-42 levels and standardized uptake value ratios during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The association between both biomarkers is limited to a middle range of values, is modified by the APOE genotype, and is absent for longitudinal changes; 4 different approaches in 2 different platforms converge on similar pathological Aβ cutoff levels; and different pipelines to process PET scans showed correlated but not identical results. Our findings suggest that both biomarkers measure different aspects of AD Aβ pathology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.4829

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Toledo, J. B., Bjerke, M., Da, X., Landau, S. M., Foster, N. L., Jagust, W., Jack, C., Weiner, M., Davatzikos, C., Shaw, L. M., & Trojanowski, J. Q.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Trojanowski, John Q.
Venue
JAMA Neurology
Published
2015-05-01
Volume
72
Issue
5
Pages
571
ISSN
2168-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2042397283
Cited by
88
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
11.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01ag024904-10)
  • National Institute on Aging (U01-AG-024904, R01 AG37551, R01AG043392, U01AG06786, U01AG006786, P30AG010124, P01AG017586, R01AG011378, P30AG013846, R01AG037551, R01AG041851, P01AG032953)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL096917)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P50NS053488)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Cerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, florbetapir PET, APOE genotype, standardized uptake value ratio, cognitive decline, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, mixture models, unsupervised classification, biomarker validation
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Aniline Compounds, Cross-Sectional Studies, Ethylene Glycols, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Peptide Fragments, Biomarkers, Amyloid beta-Peptides, Positron-Emission Tomography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review