ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Evaluation of two clinical Centiloid analysis products for
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 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.
- From image reconstruction to clinical prognosis: A comprehensive analysis of centiloid-based amyloid PET assessment.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Comparability of Centiloid values from [Neuroimage. Reports · 2026Article
- Exploring Centiloid Robustness: Impact of Sample Size and Image Resolution on Centiloid Conversion Accuracy.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
- Inter-software variability of Centiloid quantification in amyloid PET: A head-to-head comparison of five software platforms.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
- Evaluation of two clinical Centiloid analysis products forAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRecently two software products (MIMneuro and Syngo.PET) received United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance for Centiloid analysis, thereby introducing Centiloid scoring to the clinical environment. This study compares Centiloid scores by these clinical products and conventional research methods.
methods
resultsCentiloid scores from both products were highly linearly correlated with each other ( DISCUSSION: Although Centiloid analyses were highly correlated, there was considerable variability in individual cases. Other factors not investigated (e.g., radiopharmaceutical, uptake time) could further contribute to variability. Clinicians should use caution when considering thresholds for amyloid positivity in individual cases. Highlights: Two newly available clinical software products, which provide rapid and simple Centiloid scoring, are compared to research processing involving both PET and MRI images.Excellent linear correlations were found among the methods.Centiloid scores for individual cases often differed by more than 10CL, which should be taken into consideration in clinical reporting.
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.