Cited by 931Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

Defining imaging biomarker cut points for brain aging and Alzheimer's disease

Open access
Jack, Clifford R., Wiste, Heather J., Weigand, Stephen D., Therneau, Terry M., Lowe, Val J., Knopman, David S., Gunter, Jeffrey L., Senjem, Matthew L. +8 more·2017·Alzheimer's & Dementia

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to develop cut points for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), tau PET, flouro-deoxyglucose (FDG) PET, and MRI cortical thickness. METHODS: We examined five methods for determining cut points. RESULTS: The reliable worsening method produced a cut point only for amyloid PET. The specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of cognitively impaired versus young clinically normal (CN) methods labeled the most people abnormal and all gave similar cut points for tau PET, FDG PET, and cortical thickness. Cut points defined using the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus age-matched CN method labeled fewer people abnormal. DISCUSSION: In the future, we will use a single cut point for amyloid PET (standardized uptake value ratio, 1.42; centiloid, 19) based on the reliable worsening cut point method. We will base lenient cut points for tau PET, FDG PET, and cortical thickness on the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus young CN method and base conservative cut points on the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus age-matched CN method.

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 · 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.08.005

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Amyloid PET ligands display 85%-98% sensitivity and 87%-100% specificity for Aβ plaques against postmortem CERAD or NIA-AA standards.

    “18 F-flutemetamol, 18 F-florbetaben and 18 F-florbetapir tracers display 85%-98% sensitivity and 87%-100% specificity for Aβ plaques when using the postmortem truth standards of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for AD (CERAD) or the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association 85,[136][137][138] .”

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: 3

  1. [32]Klunk WE Cohen A Bi W Weissfeld L Aizenstein H McDade E Why we need two cutoffs for amyloid-imaging: Early versus Alzheimer’s-like amyloid-positivity P453 P4 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Alzheimer’s Associaton 2012
  2. [38]Landau SM Harvey D Madison CM Koeppe RA Reiman EM Foster NL Associations between cognitive, functional, and FDG-PET measures of decline in AD and MCI Neurobiol Aging 2011 32 1207 18 19660834 PMC2891865
  3. [41]Jack CR Wiste HJ Weigand S Knopman D Mielke MM Vemuri P Different definitions of neurodegeneration produce similar frequencies of amyloid and neurodegeneration biomarker groups by age among cognitively non-impaired individuals Brain 2015 PMC4655341 26428666

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jack, C. R., Wiste, H. J., Weigand, S. D., Therneau, T. M., Lowe, V. J., Knopman, D. S., Gunter, J. L., Senjem, M. L., Jones, D. T., Kantarci, K., Machulda, M. M., Mielke, M. M., Roberts, R. O., Vemuri, P., Reyes, D. A., & Petersen, R. C.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Jack, Clifford R.
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-09-30
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
205-216
ISSN
  • 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5279
OpenAlex
W2529649944
Cited by
931
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 108 · 2025: 119 · 2024: 162 · 2023: 114 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 1
FWCI
40.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Health (R01 AG011378, R01 AG041851, U01 AG006786, R01 AG034676)
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 › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
imaging biomarkers, cut points
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Alzheimer Disease, Amyloidosis, Aniline Compounds, Brain, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Sensitivity and Specificity, Thiazoles, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, 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