↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of CSF markers and semi-quantitative amyloid PET in Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and in cognitive impairment prognosis using the ADNI-2 database

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet


33 Dimensions

Readers on

98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Comparison of CSF markers and semi-quantitative amyloid PET in Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and in cognitive impairment prognosis using the ADNI-2 database
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13195-017-0260-z
Pubmed ID

Fayçal Ben Bouallègue, Denis Mariano-Goulart, Pierre Payoux


The relative performance of semi-quantitative amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) markers in diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD) and predicting the cognitive evolution of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is still debated. Subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 with complete baseline cognitive assessment (Mini Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale [ADAS-cog] scores), CSF collection (amyloid-β1-42 [Aβ], tau and phosphorylated tau) and (18)F-florbetapir scans were included in our cross-sectional cohort. Among these, patients with MCI or substantial memory complaints constituted our longitudinal cohort and were followed for 30 ± 16 months. PET amyloid deposition was quantified using relative retention indices (standardised uptake value ratio [SUVr]) with respect to pontine, cerebellar and composite reference regions. Diagnostic and prognostic performance based on PET and CSF was evaluated using ROC analysis, multivariate linear regression and survival analysis with the Cox proportional hazards model. The cross-sectional study included 677 participants and revealed that pontine and composite SUVr values were better classifiers (AUC 0.88, diagnostic accuracy 85%) than CSF markers (AUC 0.83 and 0.85, accuracy 80% and 75%, for Aβ and tau, respectively). SUVr was a strong independent determinant of cognition in multivariate regression, whereas Aβ was not; tau was also a determinant, but to a lesser degree. Among the 396 patients from the longitudinal study, 82 (21%) converted to AD within 22 ± 13 months. Optimal SUVr thresholds to differentiate AD converters were quite similar to those of the cross-sectional study. Composite SUVr was the best AD classifier (AUC 0.86, sensitivity 88%, specificity 81%). In multivariate regression, baseline cognition (CDR and ADAS-cog) was the main predictor of subsequent cognitive decline. Pontine and composite SUVr were moderate but independent predictors of final status and CDR/ADAS-cog progression rate, whereas baseline CSF markers had a marginal influence. The adjusted HRs for AD conversion were 3.8 (p = 0.01) for PET profile, 1.2 (p = ns) for Aβ profile and 1.8 (p = 0.03) for tau profile. Semi-quantitative amyloid PET appears more powerful than CSF markers for AD grading and MCI prognosis in terms of cognitive decline and AD conversion.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
Unknown 96 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 19%
Neuroscience 12 12%
Psychology 6 6%
Engineering 4 4%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 35 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2017.
All research outputs
of 9,738,781 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
of 432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 262,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,738,781 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.