Article in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.
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
7 authors.
Karly A CodyDepartment of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5996-2560
Andrzej SokolowskiDepartment of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Lucah Medina GuerraDepartment of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Philip S InselDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
William J JagustNeuroscience Department, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Theresa M HarrisonNeuroscience Department, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.
Elizabeth C MorminoDepartment of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Funding
Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative - SupplementU01AG024904 · NIA · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE RES &EDUC · PI WEINER, MICHAEL W · 2004 to 2015
$121.0M
Technology and Remote Assessment CoreU19AG063911 · NIA · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI ADAM L. BOXER, Bradley F Boeve · 2019 to 2026
$120.9M
ADRC Consortium for Clarity in ADRD Research Through ImagingU01AG082350 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Sarah Biber, BRADFORD C DICKERSON · 2023 to 2026
$90.0M
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
Smartphone-Based "Burst" Cognitive AssessmentsP01AG003991 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Suzanne Elizabeth Schindler · 1985 to 2026
$69.5M
The Clinical Significance of Incidental White Matter Lesions on MRI Amongst a Diverse Population with Cognitive Complaints (INDEED)U19NS120384 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Charles DeCarli, MYRIAM FORNAGE · 2020 to 2026
$61.9M
THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS OF INTRA-NASAL INSULIN DETEMIRP50AG005136 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BUCHWALD, DEDRA S · 1985 to 2019
$57.2M
The natural history of AB accumulation in preclinical ADP01AG026276 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MORRIS, JOHN · 2005 to 2025
$49.5M
SUPPLEMENT TO RUSH ALZHEIMERS DISEASE CENTER COREP30AG010161 · NIA · RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BENNETT, DAVID ALAN · 1991 to 2020
$49.1M
Satellite Diagnostic and Treatment Clinic CoreP50AG008702 · NIA · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI DE JAGER, PHILIP L · 1989 to 2019
$46.3M
National Alzheimer's Coordinating CenterU24AG072122 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI STEPHENS, KARI A · 2021 to 2025
$45.8M
TREATMENT OF DEPRESSION IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASEP50AG005133 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI SWEET, ROBERT A · 1985 to 2019
introductionAmyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scans collected by Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) include site-specific "mixed protocols" and, since 2021, standardized protocols through the Standardized, Centralized AD/ADRD Neuroimaging initiative. We compared amyloid PET from cohorts using unstandardized versus standardized pre-processing protocols.
methodsAcross cohorts, amyloid measured in Centiloids (CLs) was derived from 18F-florbetapir (FBP), 18F-florbetaben (FBB), 11C-Pittsburgh compound B (PIB), and 18F-NAV4694 (NAV) scans using identical magnetic resonance imaging-free post-processing pipelines. We evaluated CL distributions across cohorts and tracers using Gaussian mixture models (GMMs).
resultsWithin each tracer, GMM-derived amyloid negative (A-) CL distributions were similar across cohorts. PIB and NAV showed lower CL variability in the A- range than FBP and FBB. DISCUSSION: Consistent post-processing yielded comparable A- distributions within tracer across cohorts with heterogeneous pre-processing protocols, supporting future ADRC PET data integration. Reduced variability in A- classes for PIB and NAV suggest that lower positivity thresholds may be appropriate. HIGHLIGHTS: Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC) amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) includes unstandardized and standardized pre-processing. With consistent post-processing, amyloid-negative (A-) Centiloids (CLs) were similar despite variable pre-processing. CLs from 11C-Pittsburgh compound B and 18F-NAV4694 were less variable than 18F-florbetaben and 18F-florbetapir. Similar A- CLs across variable pre-processing supports combining ADRC amyloid PET.
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.
Comparison of amyloid PET acquired through standardized and unstandardized protocols. · full record | OpenQuestion