Soininen, Hilkka S.

AbstractBackgroundHippocampal volumetry on magnetic resonance imaging is recognized as an Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker, and manual segmentation is the gold standard for measurement. However, a standard procedure is lacking. We operationalize and quantitate landmark differences to help a Delphi panel converge on a set of landmarks.MethodsOne hundred percent of anatomic landmark variability across 12 different protocols for manual segmentation was reduced into four segmentation units (the minimum hippocampus, the alveus/fimbria, the tail, and the subiculum), which were segmented on magnetic resonance images by expert raters to estimate reliability and AD‐related atrophy.ResultsIntra‐ and interrater reliability were more than 0.96 and 0.92, respectively, except for the alveus/fimbria, which were 0.86 and 0.77, respectively. Of all AD‐related atrophy, the minimum hippocampus contributed to 67%; tail, 24%; alveus/fimbria, 4%; and the subiculum, 5%.ConclusionsAnatomic landmark variability in available protocols can be reduced to four discrete and measurable segmentation units. Their quantitative assessment will help a Delphi panel to define a set of landmarks for a harmonized protocol.

BackgroundThe cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers amyloid β (Aβ)‐42, total‐tau (T‐tau), and phosphorylated‐tau (P‐tau) demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy for Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, there are large variations in biomarker measurements between studies, and between and within laboratories. The Alzheimer's Association has initiated a global quality control program to estimate and monitor variability of measurements, quantify batch‐to‐batch assay variations, and identify sources of variability. In this article, we present the results from the first two rounds of the program.MethodsThe program is open for laboratories using commercially available kits for Aβ, T‐tau, or P‐tau. CSF samples (aliquots of pooled CSF) are sent for analysis several times a year from the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory at the Mölndal campus of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Each round consists of three quality control samples.ResultsForty laboratories participated. Twenty‐six used INNOTEST enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay kits, 14 used Luminex xMAP with the INNO‐BIA AlzBio3 kit (both measure Aβ‐(1‐42), P‐tau(181P), and T‐tau), and 5 used Meso Scale Discovery with the Aβ triplex (AβN‐42, AβN‐40, and AβN‐38) or T‐tau kits. The total coefficients of variation between the laboratories were 13% to 36%. Five laboratories analyzed the samples six times on different occasions. Within‐laboratory precisions differed considerably between biomarkers within individual laboratories.ConclusionsMeasurements of CSF AD biomarkers show large between‐laboratory variability, likely caused by factors related to analytical procedures and the analytical kits. Standardization of laboratory procedures and efforts by kit vendors to increase kit performance might lower variability, and will likely increase the usefulness of CSF AD biomarkers.