Cited by 317Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

Multisite study of the relationships between antemortem [ 11 C]PIB‐PET Centiloid values and postmortem measures of Alzheimer's disease neuropathology

Open access
La Joie, Renaud, Ayakta, Nagehan, Seeley, William W., Borys, Ewa, Boxer, Adam L., DeCarli, Charles, Doré, Vincent, Grinberg, Lea T. +27 more·2019·Alzheimer's & Dementia

Abstract

Introduction: We sought to establish the relationships between standard postmortem measures of AD neuropathology and antemortem [ 11 C]PIB–positron emission tomography ([ 11 C]PIB‐PET) analyzed with the Centiloid (CL) method, a standardized scale for Aβ‐PET quantification. Methods: Four centers contributed 179 participants encompassing a broad range of clinical diagnoses, PET data, and autopsy findings. Results: CL values increased with each CERAD neuritic plaque score increment (median −3 CL for no plaques and 92 CL for frequent plaques) and nonlinearly with Thal Aβ phases (increases were detected starting at phase 2) with overlap between scores/phases. PET‐pathology associations were comparable across sites and unchanged when restricting the analyses to the 56 patients who died within 2 years of PET. A threshold of 12.2 CL detected CERAD moderate‐to‐frequent neuritic plaques (area under the curve = 0.910, sensitivity = 89.2%, specificity = 86.4%), whereas 24.4 CL identified intermediate‐to‐high AD neuropathological changes (area under the curve = 0.894, sensitivity = 84.1%, specificity = 87.9%). Discussion: Our study demonstrated the robustness of a multisite Centiloid [ 11 C]PIB‐PET study and established a range of pathology‐based CL thresholds.

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.2018.09.001

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?

  • PET scans were read as positive or negative using a method previously described and validated against neuropathology.

    “PET scans were read as positive or negative, as previously described and validated against neuropathology.27”

    From Plasma Tau and Neurofilament Light in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration and Alzheimer Disease (2021) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Results (Complementary analyses; page unavailable) describe clinicians reading PET scans as positive or negative. The Discussion (Pathology-based thresholds; page unavailable) validates a quantitative Centiloid threshold against neuropathology and compares it with visual reads, but does not establish that the visual-reading method itself was validated against neuropathology. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The 12-Centiloid threshold is the optimal cut-off validated in neuropathology to detect CERAD moderate-to-frequent neuritic plaque scores, early detection of Aβ abnormalities by PET, and agreement against CSF AD biomarkers.

    “The 12-Centiloid threshold is the optimal cut-off validated in neuropathology to detect CERAD moderate-to-frequent, neuritic plaque scores19, early detection of Aβ abnormalities by PET22 and agreement against CSF AD biomarkers18.”
  • A level of 20 centiloids or less is an accepted threshold for amyloid negativity.

    “From this work, ≤20 CL is an accepted threshold for amyloid negativity.”
  • 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

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [21]Villeneuve S, Rabinovici GD, Cohn-Sheehy BI, Madison C, Ayakta N, Ghosh PM, Existing Pittsburgh Compound-B positron emission tomography thresholds are too high: statistical and pathological evaluation. Brain J Neurol 2015; 138: 2020– 33. doi: 10.1093/brain/awv112. PMC4806716 25953778 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [46]Klunk WE, Koeppe RA, Price JC, Benzinger TL, Devous MD, Jagust WJ, The Centiloid Project: standardizing quantitative amyloid plaque estimation by PET. Alzheimers Dement J Alzheimers Assoc 2015; 11: 1– 15. e1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2014.07.003. PMC4300247 25443857 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
La Joie, R., Ayakta, N., Seeley, W. W., Borys, E., Boxer, A. L., DeCarli, C., Doré, V., Grinberg, L. T., Huang, E., Hwang, J., Ikonomovic, M. D., Jack, C., Jagust, W. J., Jin, L., Klunk, W. E., Kofler, J., Lesman‐Segev, O. H., Lockhart, S. N., Lowe, V. J., Masters, C. L., Mathis, C. A., McLean, C. L., Miller, B. L., Mungas, D., O'Neil, J. P., Olichney, J. M., Parisi, J. E., Petersen, R. C., Rosen, H. J., Rowe, C. C., Spina, S., Vemuri, P., Villemagne, V. L., Murray, M. E., & Rabinovici, G. D.
Affiliations
  • Memory & Aging Center Department of Neurology University of California San Francisco CA USA
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Austin Health (AU)
  • Department of Neurology University of Pittsburgh PA USA
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • The Alfred Hospital (AU)
  • Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute University of California Berkeley CA USA
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-10-19
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
205-216
ISSN
  • 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5279
OpenAlex
W2897964327
Cited by
317
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 10
FWCI
14.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Biogen
  • Genentech
  • GE Healthcare
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging
  • National Cancer Institute
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
Alzheimer's disease, 11C-PiB PET
MeSH terms
Neuropathology, Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Aniline Compounds, Autopsy, Female, Humans, Male, Retrospective Studies, Thiazoles, Positron-Emission Tomography, Plaque, Amyloid

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