Cited by 223Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

Prevalence and outcomes of amyloid positivity among persons without dementia in a longitudinal, population-based setting

Open access
Roberts, Rosebud O., Aakre, Jeremiah A., Kremers, Walter K., Vassilaki, Maria, Knopman, David S., Mielke, Michelle M., Alhurani, Rabe, Geda, Yonas E. +6 more·2018·JAMA Neurology

Abstract

Importance: Brain amyloid deposition is a marker of Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology. The population-based prevalence and outcomes of amyloid positivity in a population without dementia are important for understanding the trajectory of amyloid positivity to clinically significant outcomes and for designing AD prevention trials. Objective: To determine prevalence and outcomes of amyloid positivity in a population without dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: In the prospective, population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging in Olmsted County, Minnesota, participants without dementia were randomly selected from the county population and were clinically and cognitively evaluated at baseline and every 15 months from August 1, 2008, to September 18, 2018. They were also invited to undergo carbon11-Pittburgh compound B positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. Exposures: Amyloid positivity (defined as a standardized uptake value ratio >1.42 on PET). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of amyloid positivity in the Olmsted County population without dementia and risk of progression from no cognitive impairment (ie, normal cognition for age) to incident amnestic MCI (aMCI) and from MCI or aMCI to incident AD dementia. Results: Of 3894 participants, 1671 underwent PET imaging and were included in the study; 2198 did not undergo imaging, and 25 were excluded for other reasons. The mean (SD) age of participants was 71.3 (9.8) years; 892 (53.4%) were men, and 179 (10.7%) had prevalent MCI. The prevalence of amyloid positivity without cognitive impairment in the population without dementia increased from 2.7% (95% CI, 0.5% to 4.9%) in persons aged 50 to 59 years to 41.3% (95% CI, 33.4% to 49.2%) in those aged 80 to 89 years at baseline. Prevalence of amyloid-positive MCI in the population without dementia increased from 0% in persons aged 50 to 59 years to 16.4% (95% CI, 10.3% to 22.5%) in those aged 80 to 89 years. The incident aMCI risk increased more than 2-fold in participants without cognitive impairment who were amyloid positive vs those who were amyloid negative (hazard ratio [HR], 2.26; 95% CI, 1.52 to 3.35; P < .001). The risk of AD dementia was 1.86 (95% CI, 0.89 to 3.88; P = .10) for amyloid-positive participants with MCI vs amyloid-negative participants with MCI, 1.63 (95% CI, 0.78 to 3.41; P = .20) for participants with aMCI who were amyloid positive vs amyloid negative, and 2.56 (95% CI, 1.35 to 4.88; P = .004) for amyloid-positive participants who were either without cognitive impairment or had aMCI vs those who were amyloid negative. Global cognitive and memory domain z scores declined significantly in amyloid-positive individuals during follow-up. The mean (SD) follow-up time from baseline was 3.7 (1.9) years to incident aMCI and 3.8 (2.0) years to incident AD dementia. Conclusions and Relevance: Population-based prevalence of amyloid-positive status and progression rates of amyloid positivity provide valid information for designing AD prevention trials and assessing the public health outcomes of AD prevention and interventions.

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.2018.0629

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Reduction of these risk factors might be protective for people with or without a genetic risk, although study findings have not been entirely consistent.

    “Reduction of these risk factors might be protective for people with or without a genetic risk, although study findings have not been entirely consistent.175, 176, 177, 178”

    From Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission (2020) · cites this paper as [177]

    The Statistical Analyses section (page not available) mentions vascular diseases and ApoE ε4 genotype, but only as covariates in analyses of amyloid-related progression. Searches for risk-factor reduction, protection across genetic-risk groups, and inconsistent prevention findings found no passage addressing those points. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The shorter age-specific duration of the preclinical stage in APOE ε4 carriers is consistent with earlier onset of Alzheimer's disease dementia in epidemiological studies and faster cognitive decline in APOE ε4 carriers with preclinical Alzheimer's disease in research studies.

    “The shorter age-specific duration of the preclinical stage in APOE ε4 carriers is consistent with the observed earlier onset of dementia due to AD in epidemiological studies and the faster cognitive decline of APOE ε4 carriers with preclinical AD in research studies [11, 42-44].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dubois B, Hampel H, Feldman HH, et al; Proceedings of the Meeting of the International Working Group (IWG) and the American Alzheimer's Association on "The Preclinical State of AD"; July 23, 2015;

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, R. O., Aakre, J. A., Kremers, W. K., Vassilaki, M., Knopman, D. S., Mielke, M. M., Alhurani, R., Geda, Y. E., Machulda, M. M., Coloma, P., Schauble, B., Lowe, V. J., Jack, C. R., & Petersen, R. C.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
  • Medical Affairs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland
Corresponding author
Roberts, Rosebud O.
Venue
JAMA Neurology
Published
2018-08-01
Volume
75
Issue
8
Pages
970
ISSN
2168-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2801534945
Cited by
223
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7
FWCI
14.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • GHR Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG034676, U01AG006786, R01AG011378, R01AG041851, P50AG016574)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
brain amyloid deposition, Alzheimer's disease, amyloid PET, amnestic mild cognitive impairment, conversion to dementia, cognitive impairment, Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, Olmsted County, Minnesota, standardized uptake value ratio, Pittsburgh compound B
MeSH terms
Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Aniline Compounds, Brain, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Thiazoles, United States, Prevalence, Proportional Hazards Models, Case-Control Studies, Positron-Emission Tomography, Asymptomatic Diseases, Plaque, Amyloid, Cognitive Dysfunction

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