ArticleJAMA network open2025
Cerebral Microbleeds and Amyloid Pathology Estimates From the Amyloid Biomarker Study.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) in Alzheimer's immunotherapy: a framework and challenges for global surveillance strategies.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2026Article
- Brain Endothelial Glycocalyx as a Blood-Facing Translational Interface in Alzheimer's Disease: Beyond "Leaky" Barriers Toward Repair-First Stratification.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- From Microbleeds to Iron: AI Prediction of Cerebrospinal Fluid Erythrocyte Load in Alzheimer's Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Prevalence and risk factors of cerebral microhemorrhages and superficial siderosis in cognitively unimpaired older adults: analysis from the CHARIOT-PRO SubStudy.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
50 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Baseline cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) and APOE ε4 allele copy number are important risk factors for amyloid-related imaging abnormalities in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) receiving therapies to lower amyloid-β plaque levels. Objective: To provide prevalence estimates of any, no more than 4, or fewer than 2 CMBs in association with amyloid status, APOE ε4 copy number, and age. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data included in the Amyloid Biomarker Study data pooling initiative (January 1, 2012, to the present [data collection is ongoing]). Data from 15 research and memory clinic studies were pooled and harmonized. Participants included individuals for whom data on age, cognitive status, amyloid status, and presence of CMBs were available. Data were analyzed from October 22, 2023, to April 26, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were age, cognitive status, amyloid status and presence, location, and number of CMBs. Presence of amyloid pathology was determined based on 42 amino acid-long form of amyloid-β peptide (Aβ42) levels in cerebrospinal fluid or on amyloid-positron emission tomography. Presence and, in a subset, location (lobar vs deep) and number of CMBs were determined on magnetic resonance imaging (locally with visual rating). Results: Among 4080 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 66.5 (8.9) years, and 2241 (54.9%) were female. A total of 2973 participants had no cognitive impairment (cognitive unimpairment [CU]), and 1107 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD dementia (ADD). One thousand five hundred and thirteen participants (37.1%) had amyloid pathology, 1368 of 3599 (38.0%) with data available were APOE ε4 carriers, and 648 (15.9%) had CMBs. In the CU group, amyloid pathology and APOE ε4 copy number were not associated with presence of any, no more than 4, or fewer than 2 CMBs but were associated with increased odds of lobar CMBs (odds ratio [OR] for amyloid, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.20-1.69], P < .001; OR for 2 vs 0 alleles, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.19-2.74], P = .006; OR for 1 vs 0 alleles, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.83-1.46], P = .49; and OR for 2 vs 1 allele, 1.64 [95% CI, 0.90-2.97], P = .11; overall P = .02). In the MCI-ADD group, amyloid pathology was associated with presence of any CMBs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.17-1.96], P = .002), no more than 4 CMBs (OR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.18-1.82], P = .002), and fewer than 2 CMBs (OR 1.34 [95% CI, 1.03-1.74], P = .03) but not lobar CMBs. APOE ε4 copy number was associated with presence of any (OR for 2 vs 0 alleles, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.88-3.35], P = .11; OR for 1 vs 0 alleles, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.59-1.04], P = .09; and OR for 2 vs 1 allele, 2.20 [95% CI, 1.32-3.67], P = .002; overall P < .001) and no more than 4 CMBs (OR for 2 vs 0 alleles, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.64-2.68], P = .45; OR for 1 vs 0 alleles, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.54-1.04], P = .08; and OR for 2 vs 1 allele, 1.76 [95% CI, 0.97-3.19], P = .06; overall P = .03) but not with fewer than 2 or lobar CMBs. Prevalence estimates of CMBs ranged from 6% at 50 years of age in a non-APOE ε4 allele carrier with no amyloid pathology and no cognitive impairment to 52% at 90 years of age in an APOE ε4 homozygote carrier with amyloid pathology and cognitive impairment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 4080 participants, prevalence estimates of CMBs were associated with amyloid status, APOE ε4 copy number, and age. CMB prevalence estimates may help inform safety evaluations for antiamyloid clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.