Windon, Charles

Abstract Background PET visual reads for multi‐center studies are conducted centrally by one or a few experts. In CLARiTI, a broader network of raters will perform the reads, necessitating methods to ensure their accuracy and reliability. Method All ADRC sites ( N = 37) will prospectively acquire amyloid PET scans for 800 cognitively unimpaired and 1200 cognitively impaired participants. Each site can use one of four amyloid PET tracers ([ 18 F]florbetaben, [ 18 F]florbetapir, [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). PET scans will be visually interpreted by ten PET neuroimaging experts located across eight ADRCs, using their preferred hardware, software, and file format (DICOM, NIFTI). Calibration requires readers to perform blinded, independent visual interpretation of 180 amyloid PET scans (30 unique and 15 duplicate scans per tracer), previously read and selected by an expert (Table 1). An even mix of visually non‐elevated and elevated scans were selected, with quantitation spanning ‐26‐123 Centiloids (Figure 1), and 15% were visually borderline (similar proportion to ADNI4), with quantitation spanning 4‐48 Centiloids (mean 21). Kruskal‐Wallis H test showed no significant difference in the distribution of Centiloid values for scans in each tracer group, Χ 2 (3)=2.133, p = 0.545. Result Calibration scans were read by a second expert not serving in CLARiTI. There was 97% concordance and almost perfect agreement between readers (κ=0.932, p <0.001; Figure 2). Discordantly read scans were visually borderline elevated ( N = 2), borderline non‐elevated ( N = 1), and negative ( N = 1), with quantitation of 8‐21 Centiloids (mean 14). Intra‐rater reads were 98% concordant and had almost perfect agreement (κ=0.966, p <0.001). These findings hold promise for scaling‐up visual reads in CLARiTI, and we expect ≥80% concordance and substantial to almost perfect agreement (κ≥0.7) for inter/intra‐rater reliability. Conclusion Calibration is essential for accurate/reliable amyloid PET visual reads in large multi‐center studies with multiple raters. Through the calibration process, we will develop methods to improve the adjudication of borderline/challenging scans and formalize methods for visual reads of amyloid PET tracers that are investigational (i.e., [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). Involving multiple raters across different sites, who use diverse hardware/software/file format combinations, will mirror the natural heterogeneity present in real‐world clinical practice. This calibration set can also serve as a standardized training tool for other studies incorporating amyloid PET visual reads.

Abstract Background PET visual reads for multi‐center studies are conducted centrally by one or a few experts. In CLARiTI, a broader network of raters will perform the reads, necessitating methods to ensure their accuracy and reliability. Method All ADRC sites ( N = 37) will prospectively acquire amyloid PET scans for 800 cognitively unimpaired and 1200 cognitively impaired participants. Each site can use one of four amyloid PET tracers ([ 18 F]florbetaben, [ 18 F]florbetapir, [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). PET scans will be visually interpreted by ten PET neuroimaging experts located across eight ADRCs, using their preferred hardware, software, and file format (DICOM, NIFTI). Calibration requires readers to perform blinded, independent visual interpretation of 180 amyloid PET scans (30 unique and 15 duplicate scans per tracer), previously read and selected by an expert (Table 1). An even mix of visually non‐elevated and elevated scans were selected, with quantitation spanning ‐26‐123 Centiloids (Figure 1), and 15% were visually borderline (similar proportion to ADNI4), with quantitation spanning 4‐48 Centiloids (mean 21). Kruskal‐Wallis H test showed no significant difference in the distribution of Centiloid values for scans in each tracer group, Χ 2 (3)=2.133, p = 0.545. Result Calibration scans were read by a second expert not serving in CLARiTI. There was 97% concordance and almost perfect agreement between readers (κ=0.932, p <0.001; Figure 2). Discordantly read scans were visually borderline elevated ( N = 2), borderline non‐elevated ( N = 1), and negative ( N = 1), with quantitation of 8‐21 Centiloids (mean 14). Intra‐rater reads were 98% concordant and had almost perfect agreement (κ=0.966, p <0.001). These findings hold promise for scaling‐up visual reads in CLARiTI, and we expect ≥80% concordance and substantial to almost perfect agreement (κ≥0.7) for inter/intra‐rater reliability. Conclusion Calibration is essential for accurate/reliable amyloid PET visual reads in large multi‐center studies with multiple raters. Through the calibration process, we will develop methods to improve the adjudication of borderline/challenging scans and formalize methods for visual reads of amyloid PET tracers that are investigational (i.e., [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). Involving multiple raters across different sites, who use diverse hardware/software/file format combinations, will mirror the natural heterogeneity present in real‐world clinical practice. This calibration set can also serve as a standardized training tool for other studies incorporating amyloid PET visual reads.

Abstract INTRODUCTION In multicenter Alzheimer's disease studies, amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) visual reads are typically performed centrally by a few experts. Incorporating a broader reader network enhances scalability and generalizability. METHODS Ten neuroimaging experts from eight Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) visually read 180 amyloid PET scans (30 scans and 15 duplicate scans for each of four tracers, imaged across a wide variety of scanners), using preferred reading software without anatomical imaging or quantitation. Scans were classified as elevated or non‐elevated per tracer‐specific criteria. Inter‐ and intra‐rater agreement was assessed. RESULTS Inter‐rater agreement was substantial (Fleiss’ κ = 0.78), with full consensus on 69% of scans. Inter‐rater reliability was substantial to perfect across tracers (Fleiss’ κ = 0.70–0.87). Intra‐rater agreement was substantial to perfect (Cohen's κ = 0.79‐1). Scans with intermediate (10–40 Centiloid) quantitation had lower reader agreement. DISCUSSION A multicenter expert network achieved substantial agreement classifying amyloid PET scans. These scans provide a standard for reader training and reliability assurance in future studies. Highlights Calibration methods ensure reliable amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) visual reads across multiple raters. Substantial agreement is possible across readers using their preferred tools. Agreement is also substantial regardless of the amyloid PET tracer used. Scans with intermediate (10–40 Centiloid) quantitation have lower reader agreement. The calibration set will become a training tool for amyloid PET visual read studies.

Objective Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) differ in many respects. Here, we address the issue of possible differences in fibrillar amyloid pathology as measured by positron emission tomography (PET), which remains unresolved due to the lack of large‐scale comparative studies. Methods Three hundred ninety‐nine cognitively impaired participants younger than 65 years of age from the multicenter Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS) and 450 cognitively impaired participants older than 65 years from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) underwent clinical assessment, brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and amyloid PET and were included in this study. We compared amyloid PET outcomes (positivity rate based on visual read and quantified tracer uptake expressed as Centiloids [CLs]) between the 2 cohorts and studied their association with age, sex, APOE genotype, and cognition. Results The amyloid positivity rate was higher in LEADS (78%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74–82) than in ADNI (71%, 95% CI = 67–75, p = 0.02). Lower Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) and APOE4 genotype increased the odds of amyloid positivity in both cohorts. Visually positive scans had higher CLs in LEADS (EOAD, mean = 95.3 ± 26.1) than in ADNI (LOAD, mean = 80.9 ± 36.8, p < 0.0001), predominantly in parietal cortex/precuneus, superior temporal, and frontal cortices. In amyloid‐positive patients, (1) CLs were higher in female patients in both cohorts; (2) APOE4 carriership was associated with lower CLs in EOAD, which was not observed in LOAD; and (3) correlations between CLs and MMSE scores were significantly stronger in EOAD than in LOAD. Interpretation Differences in the burden of amyloid pathology may contribute to differences in clinical and anatomic patterns in sporadic EOAD and LOAD, and have implications for optimizing therapeutic strategies in each group. ANN NEUROL 2025;98:236–248

AbstractBackgroundDiagnosing sporadic early‐onset AD (EOAD, age‐at‐onset<65) is challenging: in the multi‐center Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study, ∼25% of patients with clinically diagnosed EOAD are amyloid‐PET‐negative. Here we used FDG‐PET to characterize the heterogeneity of hypometabolic profiles in these patients and better identify underlying etiologies.MethodSeventy‐four amyloid‐PET‐negative patients with clinical diagnosis of sporadic EOAD (MCI or mild dementia stage) underwent FDG‐PET. Patients were classified as having normal or hypometabolic FDG‐PET based on a data‐driven approach that compared each patient to a group of 61 age‐matched amyloid‐PET‐negative controls using 12 methodological combinations (3 reference regions, 2 voxel‐level thresholds, 2 outlier detection methods). We then assessed clinical and demographic differences between patients with normal versus hypometabolic FDG‐PET, and further compared groups using independent biomarkers of neurodegeneration (structural MRI and fluid biomarkers). Finally, we applied hierarchical clustering to hypometabolic FDG‐PET scans to identify patterns of hypometabolism.ResultThirty‐six amyloid‐negative patients (49%) had hypometabolic FDG‐PET scans. They were older and more severely impaired across most cognitive domains than patients with normal FDG‐PET (Table 1). They also had reduced hippocampal volumes and cortical thickness (Figure 1A), higher plasma and CSF neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and elevated plasma GFAP compared to patients with normal FDG‐PET (Figure 1B). In contrast, the latter, who had intermediate cognitive scores between hypometabolic patients and controls, had MRI and fluid biomarker levels in the range of controls (Figure 1). In hypometabolic patients, hierarchical clustering identified four profiles: i) anterior temporal extending to temporo‐parietal and frontal regions (n=5), ii) anterior temporal and orbitofrontal (n=11), iii) occipito‐parietal (n=6), and iv) lateral frontal and parietal (n=14) (Figure 2). Genetic testing identified two patients with Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD)‐associated pathogenic variants, both considered hypometabolic and assigned to the first (MAPT) and second (c9orf72) metabolic profiles.ConclusionFifty‐one percent of amyloid‐negative patients had normal FDG‐PET: they had milder clinical impairment, normal MRI measures, and normal NfL values, suggesting non‐neurodegenerative etiologies. Patients with abnormal FDG showed heterogeneous hypometabolic patterns suggestive of multiple etiologies including Lewy body disease, FTLD or corticobasal degeneration. Longitudinal follow‐up to autopsy will ultimately clarify the amyloid‐negative clinical mimics of sporadic EOAD.

AbstractBackgroundLarge‐scale studies comparing sporadic early‐onset AD (EOAD, age<65) and late‐onset AD (LOAD, age≥65) are lacking. We compared amyloid‐PET outcomes (positivity rate and amyloid burden) between patients clinically diagnosed with sporadic EOAD vs LOAD, leveraging data from the Longitudinal Early‐Onset AD Study (LEADS) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 3 (ADNI3).Method731 patients meeting the 2011 NIA‐AA criteria for AD dementia or MCI were included (505 early‐onset from LEADS, 226 late‐onset from ADNI3, Table 1). All participants underwent amyloid‐PET with [18F]Florbetaben or [18F]Florbetapir. Amyloid positivity was centrally determined by a process involving a visual read by a trained expert and PET‐only quantification; in case of a discrepancy, a read from an independent physician acted as a tiebreaker. Logistic regressions in each cohort examined relations between amyloid positivity and age, sex, MMSE and APOE4 genotype. Amyloid burden was independently quantified in Centiloids using an MRI‐based pipeline. Mean Centiloids in LEADS and ADNI were compared with two‐way ANOVA, for visually positive and visually negative scans.ResultAmyloid positivity rate was higher in LEADS (76%) than ADNI (64%, p<0.001, Figure 1A). Lower MMSE and APOE4 genotype increased odds of amyloid positivity in both cohorts, although the APOE4 effect was stronger in ADNI than LEADS (OR=10.1 versus 2.4, p=0.007, Table 2). Amyloid positivity was more common in females across cohorts, but this effect was only statistically significant in LEADS (Table 2). Centiloids were bimodally distributed in both cohorts, although the separation between positive and negative scans was more prominent in LEADS (Figure 1B). Visually positive scans had significantly higher Centiloids in LEADS than in ADNI, whereas no cohort difference was observed for visually negative scans (Figure 1C). Sensitivity analyses showed that this effect was driven by patients with MCI (CDR≤0.5; Figure 1D‐E).ConclusionThe lower amyloid positivity rate in ADNI might be due to AD‐mimicking pathologies being more common at an older age. The higher amyloid burden in early‐onset, amyloid‐positive patients could reflect younger patients being diagnosed later in the disease course compared to typical, late‐onset patients. Alternatively, younger patients might tolerate higher neuropathology burden due to higher brain reserve or fewer co‐pathologies.

AbstractBackgroundLarge‐scale studies comparing sporadic early‐onset AD (EOAD, age<65) and late‐onset AD (LOAD, age = 65) are lacking. We compared amyloid‐PET outcomes (positivity rate and amyloid burden) between patients clinically diagnosed with sporadic EOAD vs LOAD, leveraging data from the Longitudinal Early‐Onset AD Study (LEADS) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 3 (ADNI3).Method731 patients meeting the 2011 NIA‐AA criteria for AD dementia or MCI were included (505 early‐onset from LEADS, 226 late‐onset from ADNI3, Table 1). All participants underwent amyloid‐PET with [18F]Florbetaben or [18F]Florbetapir. Amyloid positivity was centrally determined by a process involving a visual read by a trained expert and PET‐only quantification; in case of a discrepancy, a read from an independent physician acted as a tiebreaker. Logistic regressions in each cohort examined relations between amyloid positivity and age, sex, MMSE and APOE4 genotype. Amyloid burden was independently quantified in Centiloids using an MRI‐based pipeline. Mean Centiloids in LEADS and ADNI were compared with two‐way ANOVA, for visually positive and visually negative scans.ResultAmyloid positivity rate was higher in LEADS (76%) than ADNI (64%, p<0.001, Figure 1A). Lower MMSE and APOE4 genotype increased odds of amyloid positivity in both cohorts, although the APOE4 effect was stronger in ADNI than LEADS (OR = 10.1 versus 2.4, p = 0.007, Table 2). Amyloid positivity was more common in females across cohorts, but this effect was only statistically significant in LEADS (Table 2). Centiloids were bimodally distributed in both cohorts, although the separation between positive and negative scans was more prominent in LEADS (Figure 1B). Visually positive scans had significantly higher Centiloids in LEADS than in ADNI, whereas no cohort difference was observed for visually negative scans (Figure 1C). Sensitivity analyses showed that this effect was driven by patients with MCI (CDR = 0.5; Figure 1D‐E).ConclusionThe lower amyloid positivity rate in ADNI might be due to AD‐mimicking pathologies being more common at an older age. The higher amyloid burden in early‐onset, amyloid‐positive patients could reflect younger patients being diagnosed later in the disease course compared to typical, late‐onset patients. Alternatively, younger patients might tolerate higher neuropathology burden due to higher brain reserve or fewer co‐pathologies.

AbstractBackgroundDiagnosing sporadic early‐onset AD (EOAD, age‐at‐onset<65) is challenging: in the multi‐center Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study, ∼25% of patients with clinically diagnosed EOAD are amyloid‐PET‐negative. Here we used FDG‐PET to characterize the heterogeneity of hypometabolic profiles in these patients and better identify underlying etiologies.MethodSeventy‐four amyloid‐PET‐negative patients with clinical diagnosis of sporadic EOAD (MCI or mild dementia stage) underwent FDG‐PET. Patients were classified as having normal or hypometabolic FDG‐PET based on a data‐driven approach that compared each patient to a group of 61 age‐matched amyloid‐PET‐negative controls using 12 methodological combinations (3 reference regions, 2 voxel‐level thresholds, 2 outlier detection methods). We then assessed clinical and demographic differences between patients with normal versus hypometabolic FDG‐PET, and further compared groups using independent biomarkers of neurodegeneration (structural MRI and fluid biomarkers). Finally, we applied hierarchical clustering to hypometabolic FDG‐PET scans to identify patterns of hypometabolism.ResultThirty‐six amyloid‐negative patients (49%) had hypometabolic FDG‐PET scans. They were older and more severely impaired across most cognitive domains than patients with normal FDG‐PET (Table 1). They also had reduced hippocampal volumes and cortical thickness (Figure 1A), higher plasma and CSF neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and elevated plasma GFAP compared to patients with normal FDG‐PET (Figure 1B). In contrast, the latter, who had intermediate cognitive scores between hypometabolic patients and controls, had MRI and fluid biomarker levels in the range of controls (Figure 1). In hypometabolic patients, hierarchical clustering identified four profiles: i) anterior temporal extending to temporo‐parietal and frontal regions (n = 5), ii) anterior temporal and orbitofrontal (n = 11), iii) occipito‐parietal (n = 6), and iv) lateral frontal and parietal (n = 14) (Figure 2). Genetic testing identified two patients with Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD)‐associated pathogenic variants, both considered hypometabolic and assigned to the first (MAPT) and second (c9orf72) metabolic profiles.ConclusionFifty‐one percent of amyloid‐negative patients had normal FDG‐PET: they had milder clinical impairment, normal MRI measures, and normal NfL values, suggesting non‐neurodegenerative etiologies. Patients with abnormal FDG showed heterogeneous hypometabolic patterns suggestive of multiple etiologies including Lewy body disease, FTLD or corticobasal degeneration. Longitudinal follow‐up to autopsy will ultimately clarify the amyloid‐negative clinical mimics of sporadic EOAD.

Behavioral neurology & neuropsychiatry (BNNP) is a field that seeks to understand brain–behavior relationships, including fundamental brain organization principles and the many ways that brain structures and connectivity can be disrupted, leading to abnormalities of behavior, cognition, emotion, perception, and social cognition. In North America, BNNP has existed as an integrated subspecialty through the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties since 2006. Nonetheless, the number of behavioral neurologists across academic medical centers and community settings is not keeping pace with increasing clinical and research demand. In this commentary, we provide a brief history of BNNP followed by an outline of the current challenges and opportunities for BNNP from the behavioral neurologist’s perspective across clinical, research, and educational spheres. We provide a practical guide for promoting BNNP and addressing the shortage of behavioral neurologists to facilitate the continued growth and development of the subspecialty. We also urge a greater commitment to recruit trainees from diverse backgrounds so as to dismantle persistent obstacles that hinder inclusivity in BNNP—efforts that will further enhance the growth and impact of the subspecialty. With rapidly expanding diagnostic and therapeutic approaches across a range of conditions at the intersection of neurology and psychiatry, BNNP is well positioned to attract new trainees and expand its reach across clinical, research, and educational activities.

Abstract INTRODUCTION We aimed to describe baseline amyloid‐beta (Aβ) and tau‐positron emission tomograrphy (PET) from Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS), a prospective multi‐site observational study of sporadic early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD). METHODS We analyzed baseline [18F]Florbetaben (Aβ) and [18F]Flortaucipir (tau)‐PET from cognitively impaired participants with a clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD dementia aged < 65 years. Florbetaben scans were used to distinguish cognitively impaired participants with EOAD (Aβ+) from EOnonAD (Aβ−) based on the combination of visual read by expert reader and image quantification. RESULTS 243/321 (75.7%) of participants were assigned to the EOAD group based on amyloid‐PET; 231 (95.1%) of them were tau‐PET positive (A+T+). Tau‐PET signal was elevated across cortical regions with a parietal‐predominant pattern, and higher burden was observed in younger and female EOAD participants. DISCUSSION LEADS data emphasizes the importance of biomarkers to enhance diagnostic accuracy in EOAD. The advanced tau‐PET binding at baseline might have implications for therapeutic strategies in patients with EOAD. HIGHLIGHTS 72% of patients with clinical EOAD were positive on both amyloid‐ and tau‐PET. Amyloid‐positive patients with EOAD had high tau‐PET signal across cortical regions. In EOAD, tau‐PET mediated the relationship between amyloid‐PET and MMSE. Among EOAD patients, younger onset and female sex were associated with higher tau‐PET.