Schwarz, Christopher G

Abstract Background Multi‐site aging and dementia studies are challenged by data heterogeneity caused by scanner (manufacturer and protocol) related variability. Quantitative analysis of white matter hyperintensity (WMH) from pooled samples, a traditional marker of cerebrovascular disease, is sensitive to machine variability. Our goal was to compare Deming (symmetric) linear regression and ComBat, a common method used for harmonizing neuroimaging measurements, for harmonizing WMH measurements on participants scanned on two different scanners (GE and Siemens) and protocols (2D FLAIR on GE and 3D FLAIR on Siemens). Methods Cognitively unimpaired (CU) ( n =53, age (mean (SD))=67 (15) years) and cognitively impaired (CI; MCI/dementia) ( n =34, age (mean (SD))=82 (9) years) participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo ADRC were scanned on GE and Siemens scanners within a week of each other (typically done on the same day). WMH as a percentage of total intracranial volume was measured using multispectral segmentation of FLAIR and T1‐weighted images (Gunter et. al. AAIC 2023). We used Deming regression as it includes errors in both input dimensions. ComBat was applied using age, sex, and diagnosis as covariates, with scanner vendor and protocol as the batch variable. We assessed the inter‐scanner similarity using Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) analysis, where a value of zero indicates identical distributions, p >0.05 indicates no significant difference under H 0 . (Gretton et al., JMLR 2012). Results Our results showed that the distribution of WMH measurements, which were different in the CU group, were more similar after Deming than ComBat harmonization (Figure 1). This was confirmed by the lower MMD in the CU group from Deming regression (‐0.01 ( p =0.76) from 0.03 ( p =0.05)) compared to ComBat (0.04 ( p =0.02))(Figure 1). However, ComBat and Deming were unable to create distributions as compatible as original measurements for the CI group. Conclusion Using a unique dataset of the same participants scanned close in time on different scanner and protocols, we found that (1) MMD measurements were useful to test the need/improvement due to harmonization; (2) ComBat was not substantially better at creating compatible distributions between scanner vendors than Deming regression, and both were sometimes inadequate. Future work will require alternative models to linear scale and shift transformations.

Abstract Background Ten years after the original publication, the Centiloid framework is now broadly used to harmonize amyloid‐PET quantification, facilitate data sharing and comparison across cohorts, and even assist visual interpretation in clinical settings. We evaluated the global implementation of Centiloids by comparing their distribution and corresponding positivity thresholds across cohorts. Methods We gathered data from publicly available cohorts and reached out to investigators across the world to collect cross‐sectional Centiloids, demographic and clinical information, and visual read data. Gaussian mixture models (GMM, k=2) were fitted to Centiloid values for each cohort and cutoffs were calculated as mean + 2SD of the lower Gaussian. When visual reads were available, we determined Centiloid cutoffs that maximized correspondence with visual reads (Cohen’s kappa). Data was combined across cohorts using random effects meta‐analyses. Results As of January 2025, we included 37 cohorts ( n = 41,678 participants) with heterogeneous pipelines, radiotracers, and clinical and demographic characteristics (Table‐1). The low Gaussian peaks ranged from ‐9 to 10CL; the meta‐analysis identified a common peak at 1CL. The second peaks were more heterogeneous (range=38‐102CL; meta‐analysis outcome=64CL). Across cohorts, the proportion of cognitively unimpaired versus impaired participants impacted the position of both peaks, with better separation in cohorts enriched in impaired individuals (Figure‐1C). The meta‐analysis indicated a GMM‐based cutoff of 19CL (95%CI: 16‐21CL, Figure‐1B); subgroup analyses showed no evidence of significant effect between single versus multicenter settings (17 versus 20CL, p = 0.30), MRI‐based or PET‐only processing (18 versus 19CL, p = 0.88), and no evidence of difference across radiotracers (Flutemetamol: 16CL; PIB: 17CL, Flutafuranol: 18CL, Florbetaben: 19CL, Florbetapir: 20CL, p = 0.78). In a subset of 29,496 participants with visual reads available, binary visual reads corresponded well to Centiloids (common kappa=0.86, Figure‐2A). The visual read‐based cutoff of 24CL (95%CI: 21‐27CL, Figure‐2B) maximized correspondence between visual read and quantification and was slightly higher than the GMM‐based cutoff. All meta‐analysis models showed high non‐random heterogeneity (I 2 >80%) across studies, suggesting non‐random differences in peaks and cutoffs. Conclusions Meta‐analysis‐based cutoffs align well with thresholds from the existing literature. High heterogeneity among studies underscores the need to investigate contributing factors, raising concerns about applying common cutoffs.

Abstract Background Use of software to “de‐face” research brain images has grown as advances in automated face recognition have made it increasingly possible to re‐identify participants. Imaging studies of Alzheimer’s Disease and related diseases have included more participants from historically underrepresented groups, but de‐facing software have primarily been validated using images from mostly non‐Hispanic White participants, and its performance has not been directly compared across ethnoracial groups. Method From The Health and Aging Brain Study: Health Disparities (HABS‐HD) study, we constructed a sample of 305 T1‐weighted MRI from HABS‐HD baseline visits, matched across three ethnoracial groups (non‐Hispanic White (NHW, n = 104), non‐Hispanic African American (AA, n = 104), Mexican American (MA, n = 97)) according to age‐decade, sex, cognitive status (impaired/unimpaired), and MRI scanner model. We ran mri_reface 0.3.5 on each image, and we ran FreeSurfer 7.4.1 on each unmodified image and on each de‐faced output. We then compared regional gray matter (GM) volume and cortical thickness measurements by subtracting each de‐faced image measurement from the corresponding unmodified image measurement. We compared these differences between de‐faced and unmodified images across the three matched groups using GLM analyses adjusted for age, sex, and cognitive status, and Bonferroni corrected. Result When aggregating across all brain regions, differences in cortical thickness measures due to de‐facing were significantly different between the NHW and MA groups, and between AA and MA, but not between NHW and AA (Figure 1). Differences between these group means were <0.005mm. For GM volume, differences were significant between AA and MA (magnitude < 0.2%), but not between NHW and AA or NHW and MA (Figure 2). Examining each region individually (Figure 3), cortical thickness differences were significant for only 4 regions (all with magnitudes <0.03mm), and GM volume differences were significant for only 6 regions (all with magnitudes <2%). Conclusion Effects of mri_reface on FreeSurfer brain measurements were significantly different across ethnoracial groups. Our future work will optimize mri_reface to eliminate these differences. However, the magnitudes of these differences are sufficiently small that they are unlikely to have a practical effect on analyses of data using current versions.

Abstract Background The Joint Propagation Model (JPM)‐based CenTauR scale was recently introduced to harmonize tau‐PET quantification across different radiotracers. This study examined how CenTauR harmonization enhances the comparability of tau‐PET quantification across matched cohorts using different tracers. The evaluation focused on three key aspects: (1) comparing tau‐PET positivity rates as defined by CenTauR, (2) evaluating its diagnostic accuracy for symptomatic AD, and (3) analyzing longitudinal changes in tau‐PET rates over time. Method The JPM, developed by the CPAD‐led Tau PET Harmonization Working Group (Leuzy et al., Alzheimers Dement. 2024; Figure 1A), models relationships between anchor point subjects and head‐to‐head tau‐PET SUVR data onto the CenTauR scale, providing conversion equations for multiple tracers. JPM equations were applied to [¹⁸F]flortaucipir SUVR (Meta‐temporal ROI) data from 561 cognitively impaired participants in the ADNI and OASIS‐3 studies. Using ROC analysis, we determined the CenTauR cut‐off for positivity (T+) that maximized the Youden index for discriminating between FDA‐approved positive/negative visual reads. Three separate cohorts, scanned using [¹⁸F]flortaucipir (ADNI), [¹⁸F]MK‐6240 (CPAS), and [¹⁸F]RO‐948 (BioFINDER‐2), were matched 1:1 by age, MMSE, amyloid‐β, and clinical diagnosis. CenTauR‐based metrics were compared across these cohorts. Result A cut‐off of 18 CenTauRs was found to optimally classify [ 18 F]flortaucipir PET visual reads (Figure 1B). The matching procedure identified 1089 participants (363 per cohort). The frequency of T+ using the 18 CenTauRs cut‐off for the Meta‐Temporal ROI was highly comparable across tracers across groups, except for the Aβ‐positive cognitively unimpaired group, where variability was more pronounced due to a smaller sample size (Figure 2A). Similarly, tau‐PET discriminative accuracy for symptomatic AD vs controls remained similar across [ 18 F]flortaucipir and [ 18 F]MK‐6240 (Figure 2B). In a separate sample of 212 matched participants from ADNI ([¹⁸F]flortaucipir) and AIBL ([¹⁸F]MK‐6240) with baseline and 1‐year follow‐up tau‐PET scans, 1‐year change in CenTauRs was comparable (Figure 2C). An exploratory voxelwise transformation, utilizing the Meta‐Temporal conversion equation in a representative case scanned with both [¹⁸F]flortaucipir and [¹⁸F]MK‐6240, demonstrates the potential for voxelwise CenTauR harmonization (Figure 3). Conclusion These analyses suggest that CenTauR harmonization increases the comparability of tau‐PET data acquired with different tracers. Additional validation analyses with larger cohorts including other radiotracers ([¹⁸F]PI‐2620) are underway.