Villemagne, Victor L.

Importance Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) is increasingly used in research and clinical settings to determine the etiology of cognitive decline and eligibility for amyloid-targeting therapies. To assist with amyloid PET evaluation and to guide clinical decision-making, images can be quantified in a standardized unit called Centiloid, the interpretation of which can vary according to the method and threshold used. Objective To collect Centiloid values from available studies and determine robust positivity cutoffs using data-driven methods and correspondence with visual reads. Data Sources PubMed search (October 2024) identified studies with Centiloid values. Corresponding authors were invited to share individual participant data. Additional data were obtained through access-controlled repositories and conference outreach (July 2024-July 2025). Study Selection Studies were included if they provided Centiloids, radiotracer, age, and sex. Data Extraction and Synthesis Each study was analyzed using a unified statistical pipeline; study estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) were fitted to Centiloid values for each study. In studies with a bimodal distribution (per integrated completed likelihood), single cutoffs for positivity were set as mean plus 2 SDs of the lower gaussian component. Using GMMs, a double-cutoff approach defined a lower certainty range using a 90% posterior probability cutoff for assignment to the low (amyloid-negative) vs high (amyloid-positive) component. An alternative Centiloid cutoff was derived from maximizing the correspondence (Cohen κ) with the binary visual reads when available. Results This meta-analysis included cross-sectional amyloid PET scans acquired with 5 radiotracers from 49 227 participants across 53 studies from 15 countries (mean age, 71 years; 54% female, 62% cognitively impaired). The data-driven GMM approach identified a bimodal distribution in 51 studies (n = 48 786), resulting in a single cutoff for positivity of 18 Centiloids (95% CI,16-19; I 2 = 97%). The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I 2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I 2 = 95%). In analyses of correspondence with binary (positive or negative) visual reads of amyloid PET scans (n = 35 045; 36 studies), Centiloids were highly predictive of visual positivity (Cohen κ, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89; I 2 = 96%) with a cutoff of 27 Centiloids (95% CI, 24-30; I 2 = 80%). Conclusions and Relevance In this individual participant data meta-analysis, positivity cutoffs converged around 18 Centiloids (data-driven) and 27 Centiloids (visual reads). Findings from a double-cutoff analysis suggest that scans in the 11 to 26 Centiloid range should be interpreted with caution depending on the context of use.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The Centiloid scale is the standard for amyloid (Aβ) PET quantification in research and clinical settings. However, variability between tracers and scanners remains a challenge. METHODS This study introduces DeepSUVR, a deep learning method to correct Centiloid quantification, by penalizing implausible longitudinal trajectories during training. The model was trained using data from 2,129 participants (7,149 Aβ positron emission tomography [PET] scans) in the Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study of ageing (AIBL)/Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and validated using 15,807 Aβ PET scans from 10,543 participants across 10 external datasets. RESULTS DeepSUVR increased correlation between tracers, and reduced variability in the Aß‐negatives. It showed significantly stronger association with cognition, visual reads, neuropathology, and increased longitudinal consistency between studies. DeepSUVR also increased the effect size for detecting small treatment related slowing of amyloid accumulation in the A4 study. DISCUSSION DeepSUVR substantially advances Aβ PET quantification, outperforming all standard approaches, which is particularly important for clinical decision making and to detect subtle or early changes in Aβ. Highlights Novel artificial intelligence (AI)‐method that penalizes biologically implausible longitudinal trajectories, enabling the model to learn standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) correction factors without requiring longitudinal data at inference time. Improves Centiloid consistency across tracers and studies, significantly enhancing cross‐sectional and longitudinal amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) quantification. DeepSUVR‐derived Centiloids show stronger associations with cognition, visual reads, and neuropathology. Longitudinal variability is reduced three‐ to five‐fold, enabling more reliable tracking of amyloid accumulation and better detection of treatment effects. Novel reference and target masks derived from DeepSUVR replicate most of the model's performance, offering a practical alternative for integration into existing pipelines.

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 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 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 [ 18 F]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 [ 18 F]flortaucipir (ADNI), [ 18 F]MK‐6240 (CPAS), and [ 18 F]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 ([ 18 F]flortaucipir) and AIBL ([ 18 F]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 [ 18 F]flortaucipir and [ 18 F]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 ([ 18 F]PI‐2620) are underway.

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 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 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.

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).

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.