Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

4306 citation(s) found for "Ma, Jeffrey H".

Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition and Mortality in Pulmonary Hypertension Associated With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (PH‐COPD)
Yogeswaran, Athiththan , Fünderich, Meike , Wendlandt, Katharina, Annis, Jeffrey , Brittain, Evan, Eichstaedt, Christina A., Cajigas, Héctor , Frantz, Robert P. , Sweatt, Andrew J. , Zamanian, Roham T., Wilhelm, J, Ghofrani, Hossein-Ardeschir, Tello, Khodr , Thenappan, Thenappan , Balasubramanian, Aparna , Sіrenko, Yu.M. , Cajigas, Hector R , Frantz, Robert P , Tello, Khodr , Seeger, Werner , Thenappan, Thenappan , Yogeswaran, Athiththan , Balasubramanian, Aparna , Eichstaedt, Christina A. , Grünig, Ekkehard , Zamanian, Roham T. , Grimminger, Friedrich , Wilhelm, Jochen, Ghofrani, Hossein Ardeschir , Seeger, Werner

Pulmonary Circulation | July 16, 2026 | Volume: 16 | Issue: 3 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/pul2.70348 | PMID 42516688 Get It

ABSTRACT In 567 PH‐COPD patients from the PVRI GoDeep Meta‐Registry, ACE inhibitor use was associated with improved survival only in severe PH (PVR > 5 WU), supporting prospective trials targeting this high‐risk subgroup.
Outcomes of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Giant Colorectal Polyps: A Multicenter Study
Karna, Rahul , Wilson, Natalie , Seid, Amir S, Larsen, Kaylee, Enke, Thomas , Hassam, Ali, Kumar, Anand R, Shah, Shawn L, Zhao, Joy, Choi, Alyssa Y, Issa, Danny, Saeed, Ahmed, Phan, Jennifer, Mosko, Jeffrey D, Dang, Frances, Westanmo, Anders, Reinink, Andrew, Samarasena, Jason B, Shaukat, Aasma, Mosko, Jeffrey D. , Bilal, Mohammad , Karna, Rahul , Larsen, Kaylee, Enke, Thomas , Choi, Alyssa Y. , Issa, Danny , Saeed, Ahmed, Phan, Jennifer, Dang, Frances , Westanmo, Anders , Reinink, Andrew R. , Samarasena, Jason , Shaukat, Aasma , Bilal, Mohammad

Endoscopy International Open | July 15, 2026 | Volume: 14 | Issue: CP | Pages: No page available

10.1055/a-2910-5182 | PMID 42592233 Get It

Abstract Introduction Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (uEMR) technique has gained popularity for removal of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) due to high en-bloc resection rates and lower recurrence rates. However, there is no information regarding outcomes of uEMR for giant colorectal polyps. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of uEMR for giant colorectal polyps across multiple centers in North America. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of adults with giant colorectal polyps undergoing uEMR between January 2019 and November 2025. Giant colorectal polyps were defined as LNPCPs ≥40 mm. Primary outcomes were technical success and rate of recurrent adenoma. Secondary outcomes were severe adverse events (SAEs) and predictors of technical success, recurrence, and SAEs. Results A total of 137 polyps, with mean polyp size 47.6 mm were included. Majority of the lesions were located in right colon (61%, n = 83) with the most common histopathology being high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (31.4%, n = 43). Technical success was achieved in 90.5% (n = 124) with en-bloc resection rate of 11.7% (n = 16). Polyp fibrosis (OR: 0.08) and HGD (OR: 0.15) were independent predictors of inability to achieve technical success. Of 92 (67.1%) patients with follow-up, recurrent polyp was present in 8.7% (n = 8). SAEs were noted in 9.5%, consisting of delayed bleeding (9.5%, n = 13), while no delayed perforation or post polypectomy syndrome was noted. Discussion Our study demonstrates that uEMR is technically feasible for the removal of giant colorectal polyps with an acceptable safety profile and recurrence rate.
Modifiable Risk Factors and Attributable Ischemic Heart Disease Mortality in US States, 1990-2023
Benziger, Catherine P., Stark, Benjamin A., Johnson, Catherine O., Roth, Gregory A., Collaborators, GBD 2023 US IHD, Abohashem, Shady, Ahmed, Syed Anees, Al-Aly, Ziyad, Alsabri, Mohammed A., Antony, Catherine M., Aravkin, Aleksandr Y., Areda, Demelash, Bell, Michelle L., Brauer, Michael, Chi, Gerald, Criqui, Michael H., Dai, Xiaochen, Doshi, Ojas Prakashbhai, Doshi, Rajkumar Prakashbhai, E’mar, Abdel Rahman, Elhadi, Muhammed, Göbölös, Laszlo, Haile, Demewoz, Hebert, Jeffrey J., Hemmati, Mehdi, Ibrahim, Ramzi, Kankam, Samuel Berchi, Kantar, Rami S., Khubchandani, Jagdish, Kim, Min Seo, Kimokoti, Ruth W., Kisa, Adnan, Kokkorakis, Michail, Kumar, Ashish, Liu, Xuefeng, Lv, Lei, Mahmoudi, Morteza, Manla, Yosef, Martinez-Piedra, Ramon, Marzouk, Sammer, Mensah, George A., Mestrovic, Tomislav, Miller, Ted R., Mokdad, Ali H., Mougin, Vincent, Mustafa, Ahmad, Nassar, Mahmoud, Natto, Zuhair S., Nugen, Fred, Parikh, Romil R., Pasovic, Maja, Patil, Shankargouda, Puvvula, Jagadeesh, Ramasamy, Shakthi Kumaran, Rashid, Ahmed Mustafa, Root, Kevin T., Sawhney, Monika, Schuermans, Art, Shariff, Mariam, Shuval, Kerem, Simegn, Gizeaddis Lamesgin, Singh, Rohit, Stafford, Lauryn K., Taiba, Jabeen, Tanwar, Manoj, Teramoto, Masayuki, Thirunavukkarasu, Sathish, Tran, Thang Huu, Uppal, Dipan, Vinayak, Manish, Yuce, Deniz, Murray, Christopher J. L., Moran, Andrew E., Kimokoti, Ruth W , Liu, Xuefeng , Nassar, Mahmoud , Singh, Rohit , Tanwar, Manoj , Yu, Hairui , Taiba, Jabeen , Benziger, Catherine P. , Stark, Benjamin, Johnson, Catherine O., Roth, Gregory A. , Collaborators, GBD, Abohashem, Shady , Al‐Aly, Ziyad , Antony, Catherine M, Aravkin, Aleksandr Y. , Areda, Demelash, Bräuer, Michael , Chi, Gerald , Criqui, Michael H. , Doshi, Ojas Prakashbhai , Doshi, Rajkumar , E’mar, Abdel Rahman, Elhadi, Muhammed, Göbölös, László , Haile, Demewoz , Hébert, Jeffrey J. , Hemmati, Mehdi , Ibrahim, Ramzi , Kankam, Samuel Berchi , Kantar, Rami S. , Khubchandani, Jagdish , Kısa, Adnan , Kokkorakis, Michail , Lv, Lei , Mahmoudi, Morteza , Manla, Yosef , Martínez, Ramón , Marzouk, Sammer , Mensah, George A. , Meštrović, Tomislav , Miller, Ted R. , Mokdad, Ali H. , Mougin, Vincent , Mustafa, Ahmad , Nassar, Mahmoud, Nugen, Fred , Pasovic, Maja , Puvvula, Jagadeesh , Rashid, Ahmed Mustafa , Root, Kevin T., Sawhney, Monika, Schuermans, Art , Shariff, Mariam , Shuval, Kerem , Simegn, Gizeaddis Lamesgin , Stafford, Lauryn K , Teramoto, Masayuki , Thirunavukkarasu, Sathish, Uppal, Dipan , Vinayak, Manish , Yuce, Deniz, Murray, Christopher J. L., Moran, Andrew Edward

JAMA Cardiology | July 15, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1001/jamacardio.2026.2435 | PMID 42455550 Get It

Importance Ischemic heart disease (IHD), the leading cause of death in the US, is predominantly due to modifiable risk factors. Estimates of IHD mortality attributable to risk factors provide evidence for health policy decision-making. Objective To estimate the burden of IHD death attributable to risk factors in the US from 1990-2023. Design, Setting, and Participants The Global Burden of Disease Study 2023 (GBD 2023) used vital records and a broad set of epidemiologic data to estimate IHD death rates, risk factor exposure, and relative risk curves for risk-outcome pairs for 1990-2023 for the general population. Data analysis was performed from October 2024 to December 2025. Exposure Twelve metabolic, behavioral, and environmental risk factors. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were IHD death rates per 100 000 persons, counts, and attributable risks from 1990-2023 by age, sex, and US state. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UI). IHD death rates were estimated using ensemble modeling methods. Risk exposures were estimated using bayesian meta-regression methods. Relative risks were estimated following the Burden of Proof framework. Results In 2023, there were 473 000 IHD deaths (95% UI, 414 000-510 000) in the US, a decrease of 58.7% (95% UI, 56.8%-61.0%) in age-standardized rate since 1990. Between 2010 and 2023, there was a 19.0% decrease (95% UI, 15.0%-22.9%) for males and a 24.5% decrease (95% UI, 20.3%-29.7%) for females in IHD death rates. High systolic blood pressure (SBP), dietary risks, and high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were the leading risk factors for IHD deaths in 2023, accounting for 47.2% (95% UI, 36.4%-57.0%), 38.6% (95% UI, 17.2%-56.8%), and 28.5% (95% UI, 19.3%-39.6%) of IHD deaths, respectively. Increased exposure to several risk factors substantially increased their attributable burden for IHD deaths in 2023, with high fasting plasma glucose (FPG) increasing 38.8% (95% UI, 11.5%-81.1%) and high body mass index (BMI) increasing 54.5% (95% UI, 41.8%-66.3%) since 1990. Smoking and particulate matter pollution had the greatest decrease in attributable IHD mortality since 1990, at 33.3% (95% UI, 23.6%-41.7%) and 74.9% (95% UI, 46.7%-88.8%), respectively. Conclusion and Relevance Per the results of this systematic analysis of GBD 2023, a total of 88.7% (95% UI, 83.4%-92.5%) of IHD deaths were attributable to modifiable risk factors in the US in 2023, with high SBP, dietary risks, and high LDL-C being the greatest contributors. High BMI and high FPG showed the largest attribution increases, while exposure to other risks did not increase significantly for the population.
Development and Validation of a Simplified Martin-Hopkins LDL-C Equation Using Machine Learning
Park, Jihwan, Fan, Leon, Marzinke, Mark A., Sokoll, Lori J., Muthukumar, Alagarraju, Murphy, Sabina A., Sabatine, Marc S., Gurudu, Rachana, Meeusen, Jeff W., Martin, Seth S., Marzinke, Mark A. , Sokoll, Lori J. , Muthukumar, Alagarraju , Murphy, Sabina A. , Sabatine, Marc S. , Gurudu, Rachana, Meeusen, Jeffrey W. , Martin, Seth S.

JAMA Cardiology | July 15, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1001/jamacardio.2026.2314 | PMID 42455545 Get It

Importance Although the Martin-Hopkins equation is widely validated and used to estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) for clinical care, a simplified equation could streamline implementation and enable broader adoption. Objective To develop a simplified machine learning–based alternative to the Martin-Hopkins equation using multivariate adaptive regression splines (LDL-C–MH-MARS) and compare its performance with the Friedewald (LDL-C–F), Sampson–National Institutes of Health (LDL-C–S), Modified Sampson (LDL-C–MS), and Martin-Hopkins (LDL-C–MH) equations. Design, Setting, and Participants The Very Large Database of Lipids is a cross-sectional database of clinical lipid measurements from a population-representative convenience sample of adult and pediatric patients. Lipid measurements were performed by Vertical Auto Profile ultracentrifugation between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. The study included patients with complete lipid panel data who were randomly assigned to a training set and a test set. External validation against preparative ultracentrifugation-based LDL-C measurements was performed in reference laboratory datasets from the Mayo Clinic (broad LDL-C concentrations) and the Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 (PCSK9) Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial (observations from patients with low LDL-C concentrations while taking evolocumab). Study data were analyzed from January to October 2025. Exposures LDL-C–F, LDL-C–S, LDL-C–MS, LDL-C–MH, and LDL-C–MH-MARS equations. Main Outcomes and Measures Accuracy of estimated vs ultracentrifugation-measured LDL-C concentration based on bias, root mean square error (RMSE), and concordance by guideline-based categories. Results The study included 4 939 528 patients (mean [SD] age, 56 [16] years; 2 635 486 female [53%]) with complete lipid panel data who were randomly assigned to a training set (n = 3 292 889) and a test set (n = 1 646 639). LDL-C–MH-MARS equation demonstrated a very low median (IQR) bias of −0.1 (−2.1 to 1.8) mg/dL (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259), comparable with LDL-C–MH. The median (IQR) difference between the MARS and original Martin-Hopkins equations (ie, LDL-C–MH-MARS – LDL-C–MH) was −0.5 (−1.2 to 0) mg/dL, further suggesting comparability between the 2 methods. The RMSE was smallest for LDL-C–MH-MARS (4.7 mg/dL) and LDL-C–MH (4.9 mg/dL), followed by LDL-C–S (5.8 mg/dL), LDL-C-MS (6.0 mg/dL), and LDL-C–F (7.2 mg/dL). The proportion of patients correctly classified according to clinical categories was nearly identical for LDL-C–MH-MARS (89.7%) and LDL-C–MH (89.6%) but lower for LDL-C–S (86.3%), LDL-C–MS (84.7%), and LDL-C–F (83.1%). The LDL-C–MH-MARS, LDL-C–MH, LDL-C–MS, LDL-C–S, and LDL-C–F equations underestimated LDL-C concentration in 16%, 17%, 28%, 39%, and 60%, respectively, when classifying LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL in patients with triglyceride concentrations of 200 to 399 mg/dL (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0113). The patterns of results were similar in external validation datasets, with the LDL-C–MH-MARS and LDL-C–MH equations demonstrating the highest accuracy. Conclusions and Relevance Study results suggest that the new machine learning–based LDL-C equation provided results comparable with those of the original Martin-Hopkins method while simplifying implementation to a single equation.
Bridging the Gap — Translating AI in Pathology into Clinical Impact
Su, Fang-Yi , Marostica, Eliana , Wang, Xiyue , Yang, Sen , Chiang, Jung-Hsien , Ogino, Shuji , Golden, Jeffrey A. , Kather, Jakob Nikolas , Qiu, Ying , Chen, Dong , Schnitt, Stuart , Yu, Kun‐Hsing , Chen, Dong , Ogino, Shuji , Golden, Jeffrey A , Su, Fang-Yi , Marostica, Eliana , Chiang, Jung-Hsien , Kather, Jakob Nikolas , Yu, Kun‐Hsing

NEJM AI | July 15, 2026 | Volume: 3 | Issue: 8 | Pages: No page available

10.1056/aip2600029 Get It

The Association Between Transfer Note Documentation and Appropriateness of Interhospital Transfer: A Pilot Study
Gallagher, Kennedy E., Mueller, Stephanie K., Marks, Joshua A., Riggio, Jeffrey M., Kubey, Alan , Kubey, Alan A , Mueller, Stephanie , RIGGIO, JEFFREY M.

Journal of Patient Safety | July 14, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1097/pts.0000000000001559 | PMID 42447403 Get It

Objectives: To evaluate the association of a templated interhospital transfer (IHT) note on transfer appropriateness and clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 100 IHTs to the Department of Medicine services between May and June 2023. The exposure was the type of documentation at the time of transfer, categorized as templated note, nontemplated note, or no note. The primary outcome was appropriateness of transfer, determined by 2 independent adjudicators using a standardized framework developed as part of the POINT Study. Documentation type by clinical specialty and reason for transfer were assessed, with statistical analyses of clinical outcomes limited to those with an incidence >5% (ie, escalation/downgrade in level of care within 24 h of transfer and 30 d mortality). Results: Among 100 transfers, 81 (81%) were deemed appropriate and 19 (19%) were deemed inappropriate. Documentation was present in 59%, including templated (35%) and nontemplated notes (24%). IHTs without documentation had the highest appropriateness rate (87.8%, 36/41), compared with templated notes (29/35, 82.9%; P =0.15) and nontemplated notes (66.7%, 16/24; P =0.042). Downgrades were more common in inappropriate transfers with nontemplated notes (50.0%, 4/8) than in appropriate transfers with templated notes (10.3%, 3/29; P =0.012). Conclusions: Structured IHT documentation was inconsistently used and did not predict the appropriateness of transfer. Transfers without documentation were most often appropriate, suggesting straightforward cases may not require formal notes. In contrast, nontemplated notes in inappropriate transfers showed high downgrade rates, implying that unstructured documentation may inflate perceived acuity. Further evaluation of documentation strategies is needed to support appropriate transfer decision-making.
Amyloid PET Quantitation and Centiloid Thresholds in the Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease
Soleimani‐Meigooni, David N. , Chiotis, Konstantinos, Allen, Isabel E., Rabinovici, Gil D., Joie, Renaud La , Group, Meta-Centiloid Study, Apostolova, Liana G. , Asken, Breton M., Benzinger, Th., Betthauser, Tobey J., Bluma, Marina, Bombois, Stephanie, Bourgeat, Pierrick, Bouteloup, Vincent , Braskie, Meredith N., Brendel, Matthias, Brickman, Adam M., Bryant, Natalie, Bullich, Santiago , Carrillo, Maria C., Casaletto, Kaitlin, Cash, David M., Chang, Chiung-Chih, CHANG, H L, Chao, Yishu , Collij, Lyduine E., Corrada, Maria M., Craft, Suzanne , Dickerson, Bradford C., Dubois, Bruno, Dufouil, Carole, Fajardo, Alfonso, Farrar, Gill , Fortea, Juan, Frings, Lars , Frisoni, Giovanni B., Gardner, Raquel C., Gnörich, Johannes , Gordon, Brian A., Gu, Yuna , Guan, Yihui, Guo, Tengfei, Hanseeuw, Bernard J., Hansson, Oskar, Harrison, Theresa M., Huang, Qi, Huang, ST , Iaccarino, Leonardo, Ishii, Kazunari, Ishi, Kenji, Jagust, William J., Johnson, Sterling C., Kato, Takashi, Katsumi, Yuta, Kaye, Jeffrey, Kolinger, Guilherme D., Kramer, Joel H. , Landau, Susan M., Landeau, Brigitte, Lao, Patrick J., Lee, Sangwon, Lopresti, Brian J., Lowe, Val J. , Luchsinger, José A., Mao, Xiaoxie, March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L., Meyer, Philipp T., Mezenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C., Franquesa‐Mullerat, María , Nakamura, Akinori, Nordberg, Agneta, O’Brien, John T., O’Bryant, Sid E., Pappas, Ioannis, Peretti, Debora E., Rowe, Christopher C., Rowe, James B., Schwartz, Daniel L., Seo, Sang Won , Shekari, Mahnaz, Smith, Ruben, Snyder, Heather M. , Sokolowski, Andrzej, Sperling, Reisa A., Sun, Pan, Taggett, Jacinda Z., Touroutoglou, Alexandra , Vaillancourt, David E., Giessen, Elsmarieke van de, Vijverberg, Jort, Villemagne, Victor L. , Villeneuve, Sylvia , Wang, Wei-en, Weiner, Michael, Woodworth, Davis, Xiao, Cally , Xie, F, Yoon, Yeojun, Yun, Mijin, Severanc, A4, ABIDE, ADNI*, ADNI-DoD, AgeWell, AIBL, AMYPAD, BACS, BATON, BIOCARD, BLSA, BioFINDER-2, BrANCH, CPAS, DETECT-AD, GEMS, GHABS, HABS, HABS-HD, IDEAS, IMAP, INSIGHT-preAD, Insight46, K-ROAD, LEADS, MCSA, MULNIAD, MEMENTO, SCAN, PREVENT-AD, SPIN,, Corrada, María M. , La Joie, Renaud , Blazhenets, Ganna , Chiotis, Konstantinos , Allen, Isabel Elaine , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Asken, Breton M. , Bejanin, Alexandre , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Betthauser, Tobey J. , Blūma, Marina , Bombois, Stéphanie , Bourgeat, Pierrick , Braskie, Meredith N. , Brendel, Matthias , Brickman, Adam M. , Carrillo, María C. , Casaletto, Kaitlin B. , Cash, David M. , Chang, Chiung‐Chih , Chang, Hsin‐I , Chêne, Geneviève , Chételat, Gaël , Coath, William , Collij, Lyduine , Colmant, Lise , Dickerson, Bradford Clark , Dubois, Bruno , Dufouil, Carole , Fortea, Juan , Garibotto, Valentina , Gordon, Brian A. , Guan, Yihui , Guo, Tengfei , Hanseeuw, Bernard , Hansson, Oskar , Harrison, Theresa M. , Iaccarino, Leonardo , Ishii, Kazunari , Ishii, Kenji, Jagust, William J. , Johnson, Sterling C. , Katsumi, Yuta , Kaye, Jeffrey , Koeppe, Robert A. , Kolinger, Guilherme Domingues , Landau, Susan , Landeau, Brigitte , Lao, Patrick , Lee, Sangwon, Lleó, Alberto , Lopresti, Brian J. , Malpetti, Maura , March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L. , Mézenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C. , Nakamura, Akinori , Nordberg, Agneta , O'Brien, John Tiernan , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Pappas, Ioannis , Quenon, Lisa , Rowe, Christopher Cleon , Rowe, James B. , Rudolph, Marc D. , Salvadó, Gemma , Schott, Jonathan M. , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Shekari, Mahnaz , Silbert, Lisa C. , Smith, Ruben, Sokolowski, Andrzej, Sperling, Reisa Anne , Sun, Pan , Taggett, Jacinda , Toga, Arthur W. , Vaillancourt, David E. , Giessen, Elsmarieke van de , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Villain, Nicolas , Wang, Wei‐en , Weiner, Michael W. , Xie, Fang , Young, Christina B. , Yun, M R

JAMA | July 13, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1001/jama.2026.13116 | PMID 42441390 Get It

Importance Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) is increasingly used in research and clinical settings to determine the etiology of cognitive decline and eligibility for amyloid-targeting therapies. To assist with amyloid PET evaluation and to guide clinical decision-making, images can be quantified in a standardized unit called Centiloid, the interpretation of which can vary according to the method and threshold used. Objective To collect Centiloid values from available studies and determine robust positivity cutoffs using data-driven methods and correspondence with visual reads. Data Sources PubMed search (October 2024) identified studies with Centiloid values. Corresponding authors were invited to share individual participant data. Additional data were obtained through access-controlled repositories and conference outreach (July 2024-July 2025). Study Selection Studies were included if they provided Centiloids, radiotracer, age, and sex. Data Extraction and Synthesis Each study was analyzed using a unified statistical pipeline; study estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) were fitted to Centiloid values for each study. In studies with a bimodal distribution (per integrated completed likelihood), single cutoffs for positivity were set as mean plus 2 SDs of the lower gaussian component. Using GMMs, a double-cutoff approach defined a lower certainty range using a 90% posterior probability cutoff for assignment to the low (amyloid-negative) vs high (amyloid-positive) component. An alternative Centiloid cutoff was derived from maximizing the correspondence (Cohen κ) with the binary visual reads when available. Results This meta-analysis included cross-sectional amyloid PET scans acquired with 5 radiotracers from 49 227 participants across 53 studies from 15 countries (mean age, 71 years; 54% female, 62% cognitively impaired). The data-driven GMM approach identified a bimodal distribution in 51 studies (n = 48 786), resulting in a single cutoff for positivity of 18 Centiloids (95% CI,16-19; I 2 = 97%). The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I 2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I 2 = 95%). In analyses of correspondence with binary (positive or negative) visual reads of amyloid PET scans (n = 35 045; 36 studies), Centiloids were highly predictive of visual positivity (Cohen κ, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89; I 2 = 96%) with a cutoff of 27 Centiloids (95% CI, 24-30; I 2 = 80%). Conclusions and Relevance In this individual participant data meta-analysis, positivity cutoffs converged around 18 Centiloids (data-driven) and 27 Centiloids (visual reads). Findings from a double-cutoff analysis suggest that scans in the 11 to 26 Centiloid range should be interpreted with caution depending on the context of use.