Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33398408›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2021

Comparing ATN-T designation by tau PET visual reads, tau PET quantification, and CSF PTau181 across three cohorts.

Karine Provost, Leonardo Iaccarino, David N Soleimani-Meigooni, Suzanne Baker, Lauren Edwards, Udo Eichenlaub, Oskar Hansson, William Jagust, Mustafa Janabi, Renaud La Joie and 11 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Visual versus quantitative tau-PET Braak staging in Alzheimer's disease using [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation of a Sensitive Visual Read Algorithm for Assessing 3R/4R Tau PET Images.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Artificial Intelligence-Powered Quantification of Flortaucipir PET for Detecting Tau Pathology.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Comparison of visual and analytic methods of Alzheimer's disease pathologic staging.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  9. Integrating visual assessments and quantification methods for tau PET staging.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Performance of a [Neurology · 2023
    Article
  15. Biostatistical Estimation of Tau Threshold Hallmarks (BETTH) Algorithm for Human Tau PET Imaging Studies.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. The Use, Standardization, and Interpretation of Brain Imaging Data in Clinical Trials of Neurodegenerative Disorders.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Karine ProvostMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. provost.karine@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5311-6758
Leonardo IaccarinoMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
David N Soleimani-MeigooniMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Suzanne BakerLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Lauren EdwardsMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Udo EichenlaubRoche Diagnostics GmbH, Penzberg, Germany.
Oskar HanssonClinical Memory Research Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
William JagustLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Mustafa JanabiLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Renaud La JoieMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Orit Lesman-SegevMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Taylor J MellingerMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Bruce L MillerMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Rik OssenkoppeleClinical Memory Research Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Julie PhamMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Ruben SmithClinical Memory Research Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Ida SonniLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Amelia StromMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Niklas Mattsson-CarlgrenClinical Memory Research Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Gil D RabinoviciMemory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, Suite 190, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI)
University of California, San Francisco · USLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · USLund University · SERoche Pharma AG (Germany) · DE

Funding

Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative - SupplementU01AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE RES &EDUC · PI WEINER, MICHAEL W · 2004 to 2015
$121.0M
Early Onset AD Consortium - the LEAD Study (LEADS)U01AG057195 · NIA · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI APOSTOLOVA, LIANA G, CARRILLO, MARIA C · 2018 to 2023
$70.3M
TDP-43 Loss-of-Function: Biology to BiomarkersP01AG019724 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Jennifer Merrilees · 2002 to 2026
$67.2M
Research Education ComponentP30AG062422 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Serggio Carlo Lanata · 2019 to 2026
$36.9M
Early Age-of-Onset AD: Clinical Heterogeneity and Network DegenerationR01AG045611 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI RABINOVICI, GIL DAN · 2014 to 2018
$3.1M
Alzheimer's Association AACSF-19-617663Alzheimer's Association AARF-16-443577NIA NIH HHS P01 AG019724NIA NIH HHS P30 AG062422NIA NIH HHS R01 AG045611NIA NIH HHS U01 AG024904NIA NIH HHS U01 AG057195
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare rates of tau biomarker positivity (T-status) per the 2018 Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Research Framework derived from [

methodsWe included 351 subjects with varying clinical diagnoses from three cohorts with available FTP PET and CSF PTau181 within 18 months. T-status was derived from (1) FTP visual assessment by two blinded raters; (2) FTP standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) quantification from a temporal meta-ROI (threshold: SUVR ≥1.27); and (3) Elecsys® Phospho-Tau (181P) CSF (Roche Diagnostics) concentrations (threshold: PTau181 ≥ 24.5 pg/mL).

resultsFTP visual reads yielded the highest rates of T+, while T+ by SUVR increased progressively from cognitively normal (CN) through mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD dementia. T+ designation by CSF PTau181 was intermediate between FTP visual reads and SUVR values in CN, similar to SUVR in MCI, and lower in AD dementia. Concordance in T-status between modality pairs ranged from 68 to 76% and varied by clinical diagnosis, being highest in patients with AD dementia. In discriminating Aβ + MCI and AD subjects from healthy controls and non-AD participants, FTP visual assessment was most sensitive (0.96) but least specific (0.60). Specificity was highest with FTP SUVR (0.91) with sensitivity of 0.89. Sensitivity (0.73) and specificity (0.72) were balanced for PTau181.

conclusionThe choice of tau biomarker may differ by disease stage and research goals that seek to maximize sensitivity or specificity. Visual interpretations of tau PET enhance sensitivity compared to quantification alone, particularly in early disease stages.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkersHumansPositron-Emission Tomographytau ProteinsAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkerstau ProteinsAlzheimer’s diseaseBiomarkersCSFFlortaucipirPETTau

Identifiers

PMID33398408
PMCPMC8178158
OpenAlexW3120838629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.