Back to Authors

Shekari, Mahnaz

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0531-8651

Mayo Clinic

Pasqual Maragall Foundation

Citations 3

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

Alzheimer's & Dementia | January 9, 2026 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S2 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70856_107124 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.
Sex, education and race/ethnicity have distinct effects on amyloid and tau‐PET status
Groot, Colin , Rowe, Christopher C., Giessen, Elsmarieke van de, Flier, Wiesje M. van der, Pijnenburg, Yolande A.L., Visser, Pieter Jelle, Braber, Anouk den, Pontecorvo, Michael J. , Burnham, Samantha C., Lu, Ming , Jagust, William J., Baker, Suzanne L. , Harrison, Theresa, Gispert, Juan Domingo, Shekari, Mahnaz , Minguillón, Carolina, Smith, Ruben, Mattsson‐Carlgren, Niklas, Palmqvist, Sebastian, Strandberg, Olof, Stomrud, Erik, Brickman, Adam, Manly, Jennifer J., Lao, Patrick J., Kreisl, William Charles, Malpetti, Maura, O'Brien, John T, Jäger, Elena, Bischof, Gérard, Drzezga, Alexander, Xie, Fang, Mao, Xiaoxie, Guan, Yihui, Frisoni, Giovanni B, Peretti, Débora Elisa , Skoog, I., Kern, Silke, Sperling, Reisa A., Johnson, Keith A., Risacher, Shannon, Saykin, Andrew J., Carrillo, Maria C., Dickerson, Brad C., Apostolova, Liana G., Rabinovici, Gil D., Barthel, H, Messerschmidt, Konstantin, Vandenberghe, Rik, Laere, Koen J. Van, Spruyt, Laure , Petersen, Ronald, Jack, Clifford R., Franzmeier, Nicolai, Brendel, Matthias, Gnörich, Johannes, Benzinger, Tammie L.S., Lagarde, Julien, Sarazin, Marie , Villeneuve, Sylvia , Poirier, Judes, Seo, Sang Won, Gu, Yuna , Kim, Jun Pyo, Mormino, Beth C., Vossler, Hillary , Rosa‐Neto, Pedro, Therriault, Joseph, Rahmouni, Nesrine, Cash, David M, Schott, Jonathan M, Hanseeuw, Bernard J, Jansen, Willemijn J. , Joie, Renaud La, Rosen, Howard J., Johnson, Sterling C., Christian, Bradley T, Betthauser, Tobey J., Landau, Susan M., O'Bryant, Sid E., Hansson, Oskar H., Ossenkoppele, Rik, Prevent‐AD, ADNI, ADNI‐DOD, A‐Study, MCSA,, O’Brien, John T. , O'Brien, John Tiernan , Groot, Colin , Coomans, Emma M. , Rowe, Christopher C., Doré, Vincent , Feizpour, Azadeh , Giessen, Elsmarieke van de , Flier, Wiesje M. van der , Pijnenburg, Yolande A.L. , Visser, Pieter Jelle , Braber, Anouk den , Burnham, Samantha C. , Kennedy, Ian Andrew , Jagust, William J. , Harrison, Theresa M. , Gispert, Juan Domingo , Shekari, Mahnaz , Minguillón, Carolina , Smith, Ruben, Mattsson, Niklas , Palmqvist, Sebastian , Strandberg, Olof, Stomrud, Erik , Brickman, Adam M. , Luchsinger, Jose Alejandro , Manly, Jennifer J. , Lao, Patrick , Malpetti, Maura , Rowe, James B. , Bischof, Gérard N. , Drzezga, Alexander E. , Xie, Fang , Guan, Yihui , Garibotto, Valentina , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Schöll, Michael , Kern, Silke , Sperling, Reisa Anne , Johnson, Keith A. , Risacher, Shannon L. , Saykin, Andrew J. , Carrillo, María C. , Dickerson, Bradford Clark , Apostolova, Liana G. , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Rullmann, Michael , Messerschmidt, Konstantin, Vandenberghe, Rik , Petersen, Ronald, Jack, Clifford R. , Franzmeier, Nicolai , Brendel, Matthias , Gnörich, Johannes , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Lagarde, Julien , Bottlaender, Michel , Poirier, Judes , Seo, Sang Won , Kim, Jun Pyo, Young, Christina B. , Rosa-Neto, Pedro , Therriault, Joseph , Rahmouni, Nesrine , Coath, William , Cash, David M. , Schott, Jonathan M. , Hanseeuw, Bernard , Salman, Yasmine , Malotaux, Vincent , Joie, Renaud La , Rosen, Howard J. , Johnson, Sterling C. , Christian, Bradley T. , Betthauser, Tobey J. , Landau, Susan , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Hansson, Oskar , Ossenkoppele, Rik

Alzheimer's & Dementia | January 8, 2026 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S2 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70856_105387 Get It

Abstract Background Sex, education and race/ethnicity are all associated with risk of Alzheimer's disease dementia. Here, we assess the effects of self‐reported sex, educational attainment and race/ethnicity on amyloid‐positivity, and tau‐PET‐positivity in 12,048 (7,394 cognitively unimpaired [CU], 2,177 MCI, and 2,477 dementia) individuals from 42 cohorts worldwide. Method Logistic generalized estimating equations were used to estimate frequency of amyloid‐positivity (using cohort‐specific thresholds for amyloid‐PET [84%] or CSF) and tau‐PET‐positivity (cohort‐specific thresholds of 2SD above mean temporal uptake in amyloid‐negative controls). We assessed: i) sex and APOEε4 ( N = 10,098) associations, to complement earlier findings of a higher frequency of tau‐positivity in females, ii) effects of lower/higher education ( N = 10,970; cohort‐specific median‐split), and iii) effects of race/ethnicity (non‐Hispanic White [hereafter: White], N = 4880; Asian, N = 116; Black or African‐American [hereafter: Black], N = 353; Hispanic, N = 356, only from Northern‐American cohorts). Outcomes were frequency of amyloid‐positivity in CU individuals only, and tau‐PET‐positivity in both amyloid‐positive (AB+) CU and cognitively impaired (CI, i.e. MCI and dementia) individuals. Interaction effects on the relationship between age and amyloid/tau‐positivity were assessed and only retained in the models when significant. Result Female sex was associated with an APOEε4 ‐independent increased frequency of amyloid‐positivity (β=0.51[0.22], p = 0.02) in CU and increase of tau‐positivity in both AB+CU (β=0.27[0.08]) and AB+CI (β=0.37[0.08], both p <0.01). Remarkably, tau‐positivity frequencies of female APOEε4 non‐carriers were equivalent to male APOEε4 carriers in AB+CI (Figure 1). No significant sex* APOE interactions were observed. In CU, higher education was associated with lower amyloid‐positivity frequency (β=‐0.12[0.05], p = 0.02). In contrast, among AB+CU, there was an age*education interaction effect that indicated more pronounced age effects on tau‐positivity in individuals with higher education (age*education:β interaction =0.03[0.01], p <0.01). There were no education effects in AB+CI (Figure 2). In CU, an age*race/ethnicity interaction effect was observed across all non‐White groups compared to White (Hispanic:β interaction =‐0.05[0.01], p <0.01; Black:‐0.04[0.01], p <0.01; Asian:‐0.02[0.01], p = 0.04). This suggests that the impact of age on amyloid‐positivity was less pronounced in non‐White groups. Furthermore, in AB+CI, Hispanic ethnicity was related to higher tau‐positivity frequency than White (β=0.51[0.22], p = 0.02; Figure 3). Conclusion In this multi‐center initiative comprised of clinical and community‐based cohorts, we observed that self‐reported sex, educational attainment and race/ethnicity were related to positivity‐frequencies of Alzheimer's disease pathology.
Creating a multi‐centre Amyloid PET dataset for DLB patients: Design and Methodology
Bollack, Ariane, Shekari, Mahnaz , Frisoni, Giovanni B, Hanseeuw, Bernard J, Lowe, Val J. , Collij, Lyduine E., Buckley, Christopher, Thomas, A. Goldzier, O'Brien, John T, Farrar, Gill , Bollack, Ariane , Orso, Beatrice , Shekari, Mahnaz , Boccalini, Cecilia , Garibotto, Valentina , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Quenon, Lisa , Hanseeuw, Bernard , Collij, Lyduine , Buckley, Christopher

Alzheimer's & Dementia | January 8, 2026 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S2 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70856_106683 Get It

Abstract Background Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) is often misdiagnosed or conflated with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) due to overlapping clinical presentations and neuropathological features. The presence of AD‐like features correlates with accelerated cognitive decline and a worse overall prognosis. Compared to AD, studies suggest that amyloid uptake in DLB may spare the occipital lobe. This project aims to investigate whether amyloid PET could be leveraged to differentiate between AD and DLB patients, with the goal of improving diagnostic accuracy and supporting patient stratification and safety in anti‐amyloid trials. Method This study involves collaboration across six centres (University of Geneva, BioFINDER, AMPLE, AMYPAD PNHS, MCSA, GEHC), each contributing amyloid PET imaging data from patients diagnosed with DLB based on clinical or neuropathological assessments. Moreover, each center provided an additional subset of AD and healthy controls, then matched to DLB samples based on age/sex/APOE genotype/education for comparison. A sub analysis will be performed on patients with evidence of both DLB and AD markers. Given the relatively small sample size, key aspect of the methodological approach is to reduce technical sources of variability. The processing workflow includes rigorous quality control, formatting, normalisation to MNI space, harmonisation (differential smoothing), and MRI‐based segmentation. Result The dataset currently includes amyloid PET scans (acquired using [ 11 C]PiB, [ 18 F]Flutemetamol or [ 18 F]Florbetapir) and MRI scans from ∼130 DLB patients, along with ∼150 AD patients and ∼150 controls. In addition, 99 patients positive for the CSF α‐Synuclein Seeding Amplification Assay were included. Patient data were anonymized, and a harmonised database was created, including demographic characteristics, clinical history, and results from neuropsychological assessments. Conclusion The creation of a standardized, multi‐centre amyloid PET dataset for DLB will enable the study of amyloid PET patterns at the global, regional and voxel level, in comparison with uptake in AD patients and controls. This dataset will serve as a valuable resource for investigating the neuropathological underpinnings of DLB, improving diagnostic accuracy, and potentially guiding patient stratification in anti‐amyloid trials. Efforts to integrate [ 18 F]Florbetaben and additional data are ongoing.