Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41278077›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Underestimated Centiloid Values in Amyloid PET: A Technical Report on Clinically Relevant Quantification Errors.

Heii Arai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Heii AraiDepartment of Psychiatry, Juntendo University, Tokyo, JPN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) interpretation using the Centiloid scale is increasingly adopted worldwide to guide eligibility and continuation of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody therapy. However, discrepancies between visual and quantitative assessments occasionally occur, potentially leading to critical misjudgments in clinical decision-making. We present a representative 18F-florbetapir case in which cortical amyloid deposition was visually evident, yet the calculated Centiloid value was 0, falsely indicating a negative scan. This underestimation likely results from reference region selection: using the whole cerebellum (including white matter) lowers standardized uptake value ratios by approximately 7% compared with cerebellar gray matter, thereby decreasing Centiloid values. Consequently, patients with substantial amyloid burden may be incorrectly deemed ineligible for initiation or continuation of anti-amyloid therapy. Clinicians should therefore interpret Centiloid-based quantification with caution, always corroborating it with expert visual reads. Harmonization of reference region definitions and standardized reporting are urgently needed to prevent inappropriate treatment decisions and ensure the safe, effective use of disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer's disease.

Indexed as

alzheimer’s diseaseamyloid petanti-amyloid therapycentiloidflorbetapir

Identifiers

PMID41278077
PMCPMC12640226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.