Back to Authors

Vemuri, Prashanthi

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic in Arizona

Citations 6

Estimating Early Biomarker Accelerations in AD‐progression: Modelling the Jack Curves
Sylvester, Hunter C, Jack, C. R., Petersen, Ronald, Knopman, D. S., Vemuri, Prashanthi, Graff‐Radford, Jonathan, Mosley, TH, Windham, Gwen, Griswold, M E, Bilgel, Murat , Simino, Jeannette , Jack, Clifford R. , Cogswell, Petrice M. , Petersen, Ronald, Knopman, David S. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Graff‐Radford, Jonathan

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S7 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70861_108869 Get It

Abstract Background Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) progression is conceptualized as a cascade of sigmoidal (S‐shaped) curves, with biomarkers shifting sequentially from normal to abnormal states. Estimating these curves requires sophisticated modeling, with challenges including (1) selecting appropriate sigmoidal‐type functions, (2) achieving algorithmic convergence, and (3) producing clinically useful parameters. We compare commonly used sigmoidal‐functions and effects on novel estimates of early and late AD‐biomarker progression ages. Method Using 3,999 Amyloid PET (PiB SUVR) measurements from 1,367 Mayo Clinic Study of Aging participants, we compared model fits (AIC, BIC) between logistic and hyperbolic functions using Non‐Linear Mixed Effect (NLME) models with subject‐specific age‐shifts. We defined novel “initial” and “maximum” acceleration points (IAP and MAP) to compare clinically “earlier” and “later” AD‐progression ages between sigmoidal‐curves. The MAP uses the maximum second‐derivative point, reflecting the age of fastest acceleration in biomarker accumulation. The IAP is defined as the first point where the second derivative of the sigmoidal‐curve exceeds a clinical threshold (here, 5% velocity increase per year), indicating onset age of early accelerated biomarker accumulation. Estimates for C 2 N plasma p ‐tau217 were also attempted (1,306 measurements on 457 participants). Models adjusted for sex and APOE4‐positivity. Result In the larger PET sample, the hyperbola had lower AIC/BIC (better fit), but showed a decreasing early PiB‐SUVR trend (Table 1A, Figure 1). Ages of late MAP were comparable, as were sex and APOE4+ related PiB‐SUVR‐curve shifts. Age of early AD‐onset was estimated 1.5 years earlier for logistic (IAP=63.6) versus hyperbola (IAP=65.1) functions. The logistic function always converged, while the hyperbolic function did not converge for p ‐tau217 in the smaller C 2 N sample. Early‐onset and late‐progression ages were 7‐8 years later for p ‐tau217 versus PiB‐SUVR using logistic‐curves. Conclusion Late AD‐progression and covariate‐related shifts in progression were comparable across models, suggesting robustness to sigmoid choice. In contrast, estimates of early AD‐onset may be more dependent on functional form. While logistic‐sigmoids inherently increase monotonically, hyperbolas do not, here estimating a decline in initial amyloid trend. Future work may explore adding biologically informed constraints to flexible sigmoidal‐functions, and alternative Bayesian approaches, to optimize both model fit and estimation of early AD‐onset age.
Harmonization Remains Unresolved: The Case of White Matter Hyperintensity Using ComBat And Deming Regression
Reyes, Calvin, Gebre, Robel K , Gunter, Jeffrey L. , Hu, Mingzhao, Schwarz, Christopher G, Meyer, Nolan , Kantarci, Kejal, Jack, C. R., Vemuri, Prashanthi, Hu, Mingzhao, Schwarz, Christopher G. , Reid, Robert I. , Kantarci, Kejal , Jack, Clifford R. , Vemuri, Prashanthi

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S7 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70861_108630 Get It

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.
Every Centiloid, from Everywhere, All at Once
Snyder, Heather M. , Apostolova, Liana G., Bombois, Stéphanie, Bourgeat, Pierrick, Braskie, Meredith N. , Carrillo, Maria, Casaletto, Kaitlin B, Chang, C. -C., Chang, Hsin‐I., Chao, Yishu , Chetelat, Gaël, Collij, Lyduine E., Dickerson, Brad C., Dubois, Bruno, Valdez, Alfonso Fajardo, Farrar, Gill , Fortea, Juan M., Frisoni, Giovanni B, Gu, Yuna , Guo, Tengfei, Hansson, Oskar H., Huang, Q., Huang, Shu‐Hua , Ishii, Kenji, Jagust, William J., Kato, Takashi , Koeppe, R. A., Kramer, Joel H, Landau, Susan M., Landeau, Brigitte, Lee, Sangwon, Lopresti, Brian J. , Lowe, Val J. , Mao, Xiaoxie, March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L., Mézenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C. , Franquesa‐Mullerat, María , Nakamura, Akinori, O'Bryant, Sid E., Pappas, Ioannis G., Rowe, C. C., Schott, Jonathan M, Schwartz, Daniel L. , Schwarz, Christopher G, Seo, Sang Won, Shekari, Mahnaz, Smith, Ruben, Sokołowski, Andrzej , Soleimani‐Meigooni, David, Sperling, Reisa A., Sun, Pan , Toga, Arthur W., Vaillancourt, David E. , Flier, Wiesje M. van der, Vemuri, Prashanthi, Villain, Nicolas , Villemagne, Victor L., Villeneuve, Sylvia , Wang, Wei‐En, Weiner, Michael S. W., Xiao, Cally , Xie, Fang, Yoon, Yeojun, Yun, M R , Rabinovici, Gil D., Wang, Wei‐en , Blazhenets, Ganna , Apostolova, Liana G. , Asken, Breton M. , Bejanin, Alexandre , Bombois, Stéphanie , Bourgeat, Pierrick , Casaletto, Kaitlin B. , Cash, David M. , Chang, Hsin‐I , Chételat, Gaël , Coath, William , Collij, Lyduine , Colmant, Lise , Dickerson, Brad C., Dubois, Bruno , Fortea, Juan , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Gardner, Raquel C. , Garibotto, Valentina , Guo, Tengfei , Hanseeuw, Bernard , Hansson, Oskar , Harrison, Theresa M. , Ishii, Kazunari , Jagust, William J. , Kramer, Joel H. , Landau, Susan, Landeau, Brigitte , Masters, Colin L. , Mézenge, Florence, Nakamura, Akinori , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Peretti, Débora Elisa , Quenon, Lisa , Salvadó, Gemma , Schott, Jonathan M. , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Seo, Sang Won , Shekari, Mahnaz , Silbert, Lisa C. , Sokolowski, Andrzej, Soleimani‐Meigooni, David N. , Sperling, Reisa Anne , Sun, Pan , Toga, Arthur W. , Giessen, Elsmarieke van de , Flier, Wiesje M. van der , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Villemagne, Victor L. , Weiner, Michael W. , Xie, Fang , Young, Christina B. , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Joie, Renaud La

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S8 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70862_110011 Get It

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.
Determining the Impact of Voxel Size on the Clinical Utility of Quantitative Susceptibility Imaging in Multicenter Clinical Trials
Przybelski, Scott A. , Borowski, Bret, Cogswell, Petrice M, Vemuri, Prashanthi, Kantarci, Kejal, Jack, C. R., Arani, Arvin , Senjem, Matthew L. , Cogswell, Petrice M. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Kantarci, Kejal , Jack, Clifford R.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S8 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70862_109957 Get It

Abstract Background T2*‐weighted imaging is of paramount importance for patient treatment eligibility and safety monitoring in anti‐amyloid pharmaceutical clinical trials and clinical care. Recently with the adoption of multi‐echo GRE (GRE) sequences, susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI), and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) can be obtained in the same acquisition. In 2024, the QSM Consensus Organization Committee released a white paper recommending at least 1 mm isotropic voxel size for QSM. In clinical workflows microbleed detection is performed with higher in‐plane resolution (0.5x0.5mm 2 ), and large out‐of‐plane resolution (∼1.8mm), which was used in the ADNI4 protocol. In the CLARiTI protocol, a 1mm isotropic resolution was adopted. The objective of this work was to compare susceptibility estimates between the ADNI4 (0.5x0.5x1.8mm 3 ) and CLARiTI (1mm 3 ) protocols. Method The ADNI4 and CLARiTI QSM protocols were acquired on forty‐seven subjects (33 cognitively unimpaired (CU), 14 cognitively impaired (CI), in the same scan session. The groups were defined by their Clinical Demential Rating (CDR) global score (CDR global = 0 for CU, and CDR global >= 0.5 for CI subjects). QSM images were generated using publically available software (STI Suite, UC Berkeley). Mean susceptibility values in atlas regions were compared. Result Significant group differences (CU vs. CI) were observed in the fusiform and middle occipital gyrus with the ADNI4 protocol, only in the rectus with the CLARiTI protocol (Figure 1). These three regions are small in size and closer to surface‐air interfaces, which may have impacted estimation accuracy. However, in the substantia nigra and its sub‐regions (pars compacta and pars reticulata), which shows increased susceptibility in Lewy body disease, the ADNI4 and CLARiTI protocols were in good agreement (r 2 > 0.9) (Figure 2). Conclusion Group differences were observed between the ADNI4 and CLARiTI QSM only in 3 small regions close to surface‐air interfaces in this small dataset. The two techniques showed highly correlated (r 2 = 0.93) estimates in the substantia nigra, a region with high susceptibility due to iron deposition. Strong correlations between the two protocols are encouraging. Radiologists have historically preferred submillimeter in‐plane resolution for microbleed detection, which is more time manageable with anisotropic imaging.
Automatic Classification of Head MR Series
Gebre, Robel K , Kamykowski, Michael G. , Kantarci, Orhun H. , Kantarci, Kejal, Vemuri, Prashanthi, Jack, C. R., Reid, Robert I. , Senjem, Matthew L. , Arani, Arvin , Cogswell, Petrice M. , Zeydan, Burcu , Kantarci, Kejal , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Jack, Clifford R.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S8 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70862_109882 Get It

Abstract Background Neuroimaging data typically arrives as Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files, batched by exam. We use exam or study to denote a single imaging session of a participant, containing up to ∼40 series (the generic term for scans and derived products). Different series have different properties and applications, making their labeling complex. Filenames often change in transit, and Series Description tags (0008, 103E) are arbitrary, operator‐entered, and unreliably coupled to the series type. Furthermore, label preferences vary from site to site, making the application of a common classification system mandatory for multisite studies. Here we describe the system that we have developed and applied to the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and SCAN. Method Although Series Description is unreliable, DICOM includes other tags that parameterize MR pulse sequences and suggest their purpose. The mapping from these features to types is difficult to explicitly specify, especially since different manufacturers and protocols use different conventions. Thus we developed a machine learning classifier using 4060 semiautomatically labeled head and spinal series from 1.5 to 7T MR scanners, including both site‐specific and standard protocols designed to study a wide range of neurological conditions, including dementia, hydrocephalus, and multiple sclerosis. An 80%/20% split, stratified by type, was used for the training/test sets. After initial training, a few cases in the training set with high errors due to rarity were augmented and the model retrained. Performance was evaluated on the clean test set. Result The taxonomy is presented in Table 1. The classifier correctly identified 807 out of 812 (99.4%) series, with the error cases coming from outside the ADNI or SCAN protocols (Table 2). The confusion matrix is shown in Figure 1. Conclusion We implemented an automatic series type classifier with labels chosen to be generally useful for the brain MRI community. Some errors were noted, but the test set was deliberately challenging and the errors appear to be ones that could easily be made by a human. The classifier is expected to have good tolerance for as yet unseen head MR protocols but is likely unsatisfactory for body MRI.
Association between temporal lobe cortical NODDI measures and plasma biomarkers
Weigand, Stephen D. , Cogswell, Petrice M, Vemuri, Prashanthi, Knopman, D. S., Radford, Jonathan Graff, Petersen, Ronald, Jack, C. R., Pillai, Jay J. , Reid, Robert I. , Cogswell, Petrice M. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Algeciras‐Schimnich, Alicia , Knopman, David S. , Petersen, Ronald, Jack, Clifford R.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S8 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70862_109858 Get It

Abstract Background Plasma neurofilament light chains (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) are blood‐based biomarkers of axonal injury and astrocytic activation, respectively, that are elevated in those with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) relative to cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals. Neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging (NODDI) is a multishell diffusion MRI method capable of evaluating tissue microstructure at the axonal and dendritic level. We evaluated associations between temporal cortex orientation dispersion index (ODI), neurite density index (NDI) and isotropic volume fraction (ISOVF) and plasma NfL and GFAP concentrations. Method We included Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) participants (ages 60‐95 years) with diagnoses or CU ( n = 356) or MCI ( n = 60), and Alzheimer’s Dementia Research Center (ADRC) participants with dementia ( n = 51). NODDI imaging was obtained on a 3T Siemens Prisma scanner with 2 mm isotropic resolution. NfL and GFAP were measured using the Simoa® Neurology 4‐Plex E Advantage kit. We fit separate linear regression models within each MCALT_ADIR122 cortical ROI with regional NODDI as the primary predictor and log‐transformed plasma concentration as the outcome. Models were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, cortical thickness (or hippocampal & amygdalar volume) and total intracranial volume. Result The Table displays demographic data. Figures 1 & 2 show the relationship of NDI and ISOVF measures to plasma NfL concentrations across participants in individual ROIs (similar findings were noted with GFAP). A significant inverse relationship between NfL concentrations and NDI was observed in hippocampus, amygdala, entorhinal cortex, parahippocampal gyrus as well as all temporal neocortical regions except the superior temporal gyrus ( p <0.001) (Figure 1), whereas higher NfL concentrations were associated with higher ISOVF in all regions ( p <0.001) (Figure 2). Fewer significant associations were also seen with ODI. After adjusting for age, cortical thickness/volume and other confounds, significant associations with NDI remain, particularly in hippocampal and amygdalar regions. Conclusion NODDI‐derived measures (NDI and ISOVF) within the temporal lobe cortical regions demonstrate significant associations with plasma biomarkers of axonal and astrocytic dysfunction that are elevated during cognitive decline. This association provides preliminary validation of the utility of NODDI in assessing cortical microstructural changes associated with cognitive decline.