ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2026
Comparability of Centiloid values from [
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- MR-Guided PET Denoising and Resolution Enhancement Improves Visual Interpretation and Preserves Quantitative Behavior Across Amyloid Tracers.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Inter-software variability of Centiloid quantification in amyloid PET: A head-to-head comparison of five software platforms.Alzheimer'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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantification using the Centiloid (CL) scale has become a valuable information to consider when interpreting amyloid-PET images and is now implemented in several software packages. This work aims to assess the comparability of CL from [ Methods: This analysis relies on three datasets: a test-retest cohort, a group of clinically relevant patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and a subgroup from the BioFINDER-1 cohort enriched with scans with amyloid loads around potential clinical decision thresholds (0-50CL). Images from the Test-Retest and aMCI cohorts were processed across seven quantification pipelines: three commercial software platforms and four research tools, including the standard SPM8 workflow. The statistical analysis was based on three steps: 1) a repeatability analysis using the test-retest data; 2) a reproducibility analysis across all pipelines using the aMCI cohort; 3) an inter-software reliability analysis around three clinically relevant thresholds: 11, 25 and 37 CL using the aMCI and the BioFINDER-1 data. Results: In the Test-Retest dataset composed of 10 Alzheimer's Disease (AD) patients, high test-retest repeatability and reliability were observed with an absolute bias of less than 5 CL. Within-individual coefficients of variation ranged from 2.6 to 4.4% and repeatability coefficients from ∼8 to ∼16 CL. CL quantification was generally reproducible across pipelines in a dataset of 80 aMCI individuals (R Conclusion: In this study, CL quantification was shown to be robust across a range of currently available software platforms. Uncertainty estimates should always be considered when interpreting results. In clinical practice, the choice of quantification software should not impact patient management decisions.
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.