Parrish, Todd B.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The Consortium for Clarity in Alzheimer's disease related dementias (ADRD) Research Through Imaging (CLARiTI) is a study that aims to collect standardized imaging and plasma biomarkers on 2000 Clinical Core participants enrolled across all Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRC) sites. We sought to summarize the known heterogeneity across centers regarding scientific focus and initial enrollment plans for CLARiTI. METHODS We developed and distributed a survey capturing information on the 36 CLARiTI site's theme/expertise, recruitment plans, and the intersection of CLARiTI with other ADRC imaging efforts. RESULTS Anticipated CLARiTI enrollees spanned 11 different categories of suspected etiologies underlying impairment. A wide range of risk factors were endorsed across sites regarding the enrollment of unimpaired individuals. Variability also existed regarding site‐level strategies in enrollment into CLARiTI versus other imaging efforts. DISCUSSION We anticipate that the 2000 individuals that will enroll into CLARiTI will reflect the clinical heterogeneity already in place across the ADRC network. Highlights The ADRC Consortium for Clarity in ADRD Research Through Imaging (CLARiTI) will leverage and contribute to the existing Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRC) program by supporting standardized imaging and plasma collection across all centers. We summarize the variation in scientific focus and enrollment plans across ADRC sites participating in CLARiTI. The anticipated CLARiTI cohort will reflect the clinical heterogeneity that already exists across the ADRC network. CLARiTI will contribute to scientific goals related to the detection of multi‐etiological signatures relevant for Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRDs).

BackgroundQuantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and dynamic contrast‐enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP) on magnetic resonance (MR) have been shown to correlate with neurovascular disease progression as markers of vascular leakage and hemosiderin deposition. Applying these techniques as monitoring biomarkers in clinical trials will be necessary; however, their validation across multiple MR platforms and institutions has not been rigorously verified.PurposeTo validate quantitative measurement of MR biomarkers on multiple instruments at different institutions.Study TypePhantom validation between platforms and institutions.Phantom ModelT1/susceptibility phantom, two‐compartment dynamic flow phantom.Field Strength/Sequence3T/QSM, T1 mapping, dynamic 2D SPGR.AssessmentPhilips Ingenia, Siemens Prisma, and Siemens Skyra at three different institutions were assessed. A QSM phantom with concentrations of gadolinium, corresponding to magnetic susceptibilities of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 ppm was assayed. DCEQP was assessed by measuring a MultiHance bolus as the consistency of the width ratio of the curves at the input and outputs over a range of flow ratios between outputs.Statistical TestsEach biomarker was assessed by measures of accuracy (Pearson correlation), precision (paired t‐test between repeated measurements), and reproducibility (analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] between instruments).ResultsQSM accuracy of r2 > 0.997 on all three platforms was measured. Precision (P = 0.66 Achieva, P = 0.76 Prisma, P = 0.69 Skyra) and reproducibility (P = 0.89) were good. T1 mapping of accuracy was r2 > 0.98. No significant difference between width ratio regression slopes at site 2 (P = 0.669) or site 3 (P = 0.305), and no significant difference between width ratio regression slopes between sites was detected by ANCOVA (P = 0.48).Data ConclusionThe phantom performed as expected and determined that MR measures of QSM and DCEQP are accurate and consistent across repeated measurements and between platforms.Level of Evidence: 1Technical Efficacy Stage: 2J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1192–1199.