Defining imaging biomarker cut points for brain aging and Alzheimer's disease

Abstract Introduction Our goal was to develop cut points for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), tau PET, flouro-deoxyglucose (FDG) PET, and MRI cortical thickness. Methods We examined five methods for determining cut points. Results The reliable worsening method produced a cut point only fo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAlzheimer's & dementia Vol. 13; no. 3; pp. 205 - 216
Main Authors Jack, Clifford R, Wiste, Heather J, Weigand, Stephen D, Therneau, Terry M, Lowe, Val J, Knopman, David S, Gunter, Jeffrey L, Senjem, Matthew L, Jones, David T, Kantarci, Kejal, Machulda, Mary M, Mielke, Michelle M, Roberts, Rosebud O, Vemuri, Prashanthi, Reyes, Denise A, Petersen, Ronald C
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Elsevier Inc 01.03.2017
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1552-5260
1552-5279
DOI10.1016/j.jalz.2016.08.005

Cover

More Information
Summary:Abstract Introduction Our goal was to develop cut points for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), tau PET, flouro-deoxyglucose (FDG) PET, and MRI cortical thickness. Methods We examined five methods for determining cut points. Results The reliable worsening method produced a cut point only for amyloid PET. The specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of cognitively impaired versus young clinically normal (CN) methods labeled the most people abnormal and all gave similar cut points for tau PET, FDG PET, and cortical thickness. Cut points defined using the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus age-matched CN method labeled fewer people abnormal. Discussion In the future, we will use a single cut point for amyloid PET (standardized uptake value ratio, 1.42; centiloid, 19) based on the reliable worsening cut point method. We will base lenient cut points for tau PET, FDG PET, and cortical thickness on the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus young CN method and base conservative cut points on the accuracy of cognitively impaired versus age-matched CN method.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1552-5260
1552-5279
DOI:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.08.005