Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 13, 2025
Abbiategrasso Brain Bank Protocol for Collecting, Processing and Characterizing Aging Brains
Published on: June 3, 2020
Comparison of visual and analytic methods of Alzheimer's disease pathologic staging
Brian J Lopresti1, Ann D Cohen2, Alex DelBene1
1Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Introduction:
Methods for standardizing positron emission tomography (PET) indices of β-amyloid (Aβ) (Centiloid [CL]) and tau (CenTauRz, CTRz) burden facilitates direct comparisons across radiotracers and supports in vivo biologic staging per the AT(N) (Aβ [A], tau [T], and neurodegeneration [N]) framework. In lieu of post mortem examination, visual interpretation is the most sensitive indicator of these pathologies. Here, we compared the performance of analytic and visual methods of AT(N) staging.
Methods:
A total of 149 participants were imaged using Pittsburgh Compound B ([11C]PiB), [18F]flortaucipir, and 3T magnetic resonance (MR) to compare visual and analytic methods of biologic staging of AD in terms of AT(N) status.
Results:
CL quantification showed excellent agreement with visual Aβ staging, whereas T status derived from the CTRz pipeline was less sensitive to the heterogeneity of tau pathologic presentations indicated visually. Poor concordance was observed between visual and analytic N status.
Discussion:
A combination of visual and analytic information is optimal for accurate biologic staging of AD.
Highlights:
The Centiloid method showed strong agreement with visual assessment for β-amyloid (Aβ) status. The CenTauR method was less sensitive than visual assessment for tau status. Heterogeneous tau deposition complicates tau standardization methods. Cortical thickness might not be the optimal index of neurodegeneration.
