Vemuri, Prashanthi

Background: The National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework proposes defining Alzheimer’s disease by grouping imaging and fluid biomarkers by their respective pathologic processes. The AT(N) structure proposes several neurodegenerative fluid biomarkers (N) including total tau (t-tau), neurogranin (Ng), and neurofilament light chain (NfL). However, pathologic drivers influencing each biomarker remain unclear. Objective: To determine whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-neurodegenerative biomarkers (N) map differentially to Alzheimer’s disease pathology measured by Aβ 42 (an indicator of amyloidosis, [A]), p-tau (an indicator of tau deposition, [T]), and MRI vascular pathology indicators (measured by white-matter integrity, infarcts, and microbleeds [V]). Methods: Participants were from Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with CSF measures of NfL, Ng, t-tau, Aβ 42 , and p-tau and available MRI brain imaging. Linear models assessed associations between CSF neurodegeneration (N) markers, amyloid markers (A), tau (T), and vascular pathology (V). Results: Participants ( n = 408) had a mean age of 69.2±10.7; male, 217 (53.2%); cognitively unimpaired, 359 (88%). All three neurodegeneration biomarkers correlated with age ( p < 0.001 for NfL and t-tau, p = 0.018 for Ng). Men had higher CSF-NfL levels; women had higher Ng ( p < 0.001). NfL and t-tau levels correlated with infarcts ( p = 0.009, p = 0.034 respectively); no biomarkers correlated with white-matter integrity. N biomarkers correlated with p-tau levels (T, p < 0.001). Higher Aβ 42 levels associated with higher N-biomarker levels but only among cognitively unimpaired (A, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The influence of vascular pathology in the general population on CSF (N) biomarkers is modest, with greater influence of infarcts than white-matter disruption. Neurodegeneration markers more closely correlated with tau than amyloid markers.

Abstract Staging the severity of Alzheimer’s disease pathology using biomarkers is useful for therapeutic trials and clinical prognosis. Disease staging with amyloid and tau PET has face validity; however, this would be more practical with plasma biomarkers. Our objectives were, first, to examine approaches for staging amyloid and tau PET and, second, to examine prediction of amyloid and tau PET stages using plasma biomarkers. Participants (n = 1136) were enrolled in either the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging or the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center; had a concurrent amyloid PET, tau PET and blood draw; and met clinical criteria for cognitively unimpaired (n = 864), mild cognitive impairment (n = 148) or Alzheimer’s clinical syndrome with dementia (n = 124). The latter two groups were combined into a cognitively impaired group (n = 272). We used multinomial regression models to estimate discrimination [concordance (C) statistics] among three amyloid PET stages (low, intermediate, high), four tau PET stages (Braak 0, 1–2, 3–4, 5–6) and a combined amyloid and tau PET stage (none/low versus intermediate/high severity) using plasma biomarkers as predictors separately within unimpaired and impaired individuals. Plasma analytes, p-tau181, Aβ1–42 and Aβ1–40 (analysed as the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio), glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light chain were measured on the HD-X Simoa Quanterix platform. Plasma p-tau217 was also measured in a subset (n = 355) of cognitively unimpaired participants using the Lilly Meso Scale Discovery assay. Models with all Quanterix plasma analytes along with risk factors (age, sex and APOE) most often provided the best discrimination among amyloid PET stages (C = 0.78–0.82). Models with p-tau181 provided similar discrimination of tau PET stages to models with all four plasma analytes (C = 0.72–0.85 versus C = 0.73–0.86). Discriminating a PET proxy of intermediate/high from none/low Alzheimer’s disease neuropathological change with all four Quanterix plasma analytes was excellent but not better than p-tau181 only (C = 0.88 versus 0.87 for unimpaired and C = 0.91 versus 0.90 for impaired). Lilly p-tau217 outperformed the Quanterix p-tau181 assay for discriminating high versus intermediate amyloid (C = 0.85 versus 0.74) but did not improve over a model with all Quanterix plasma analytes and risk factors (C = 0.85 versus 0.83). Plasma analytes along with risk factors can discriminate between amyloid and tau PET stages and between a PET surrogate for intermediate/high versus none/low neuropathological change with accuracy in the acceptable to excellent range. Combinations of plasma analytes are better than single analytes for many staging predictions with the exception that Quanterix p-tau181 alone usually performed equivalently to combinations of Quanterix analytes for tau PET discrimination.

AbstractBackgroundNeurite Orientation Dispersion and Density Imaging (NODDI) is becoming increasingly common as multiband acceleration becomes available for clinical scanning, but fitting the model can be extremely slow. Since the release of the original MATLAB implementation in 2012, three alternatives have become popular: Accelerated Microstructure Imaging via Convex Optimization (AMICO), the Microstructure Diffusion Toolbox (MDT), and the CUDA Diffusion Modelling Toolbox (cuDIMOT). They accelerate fitting through reformulation and/or using GPUs, but the implementation differences raise the question of which approach is best. To our knowledge all previous comparisons lacked knowledge of the true values and used the original implementation as the nominally correct one, with in vivo data. We remedy that using simulations with known NODDI values, in addition to in vivo scans.MethodWe created a software phantom with Neurite Density Index (NDI) values linearly increasing from 0.1 to 1.0 in x, Orientation Dispersion (ODI) from 0 to 1 in y, and Isotropic water Volume Fraction (ISOVF) from 0 to 0.9 in z. We simulated five scans using the ADNI3 advanced diffusion MRI protocol. The phantom had 20 voxels in each direction, and the fiber bundle principal direction randomly varied between the simulations. The simulations were fit by the original, AMICO, MDT, and cuDIMOT implementations, and root mean square errors were calculated as shown in Table 1. A discrepancy measure was also calculated using the brain voxels of three in vivo human scans acquired using the same protocol on a Siemens Prisma, substituting the original implementation’s values for the truth since the latter is unknown for in vivo scans.ResultcuDIMOT had the least error (for ODI < 0.8) and was fastest. The original implementation was a close second in accuracy but much slower. cuDIMOT’s ODI underestimation can be corrected with a transfer function in the noise‐free case, but that approach fails with actual scans.ConclusionThe original or cuDIMOT implementations should be used, with cuDIMOT the favorite when at least one CUDA‐capable GPU is available and the number of scans are large. Correcting cuDIMOT’s ODI underestimation using a different initialization or form of Dawson’s integral should be investigated.

AbstractBackgroundCerebral Microbleeds (CMBs) are tracked in anti‐amyloid drug safety monitoring. T2*GRE or SWI MRI images are visually assessed for the presence of CMBs. Automated methods tuned for sensitivity often have unacceptably high false positive rates requiring extensive human cleanup.MethodAssume contemporaneous T2*GRE and T1‐weighted images. CMB detection (Figures 1,2) has three steps: 1) Segmentation outputs from the T1‐weighted image are resampled into the T2*GRE image voxel raster; 2) Normalized cross‐correlation of the T2*GRE with a CMB template identifies “candidate CMBs”; 3) a neural network using voxel patches centered on each candidate CMB rejects false positives. Patches presented to the network are 4D and include five contrasts drawn from the T2*GRE, correlation, T1‐weighted, WM probability and CSF probability images. The simple network architecture consists of convolutional blocks followed by dense blocks. The system is trained using images from ADNI, ARIC, MCSA, and the Mayo Clinic ADRC that have been previously visually graded for CMBs (Table in Figure 3). Importantly, we include participants with and without CMBs in our data reflecting the fact that the majority of people (even the elderly) have no CMBs. Data is split 70:10:20 by subject for training, validation, and testing. Various network configurations were evaluated.ResultHigh candidate detection sensitivity can be achieved at the expense of presenting hundreds to thousands of false positive candidates per input image to the rejection network. Our best performing network configuration to date has AUC 0.982 (95% bootstrap CI 0.971 to 0.990 based on the 10% validation subset). Choosing an operating point with 95% sensitivity in the validation set and admits, on average, 0.6 false positive CMB candidates per input T2*GRE image. Sensitivity is hindered by a small number of obvious errors in the ground truth visual assessment. Validation loss tracks training loss with no indication of over‐fitting. Example patches are shown in Figure 4.ConclusionExcessive false positive detection requires significant human correction and effort, preventing automated CMB detection from being widely adopted. We have an automated detection system that is sensitive (95%) and provides excellent false positive rejection (<1 false positive CMB/input image) reducing needed human effort.

AbstractBackgroundWhite matter hyperintensities (WMH) are markers of cerebral small vessel disease and have been associated with higher risk of typical amnestic Alzheimer’s disease (AD), however, little is known about the role of WMHs in atypical variants of AD. This study aimed to determine the frequency and distribution of WMH in two atypical variants of AD: logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), and determine whether WMH are associated with demographic and clinical outcomes in these cohorts.MethodSeventy‐five LPA and 39 PCA patients were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group and underwent two‐ dimensional fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI and Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB) PET. All patients were PiB‐positive. All FLAIR images were segmented using an in‐house software, then were manually edited by a trained imaging analyst. WMH volume was scaled by total intracranial volume to correct for differences in head size. Adjusted WMH burdens were compared between LPA and PCA, and associations were assessed between WMH burden and age, global PiB standard uptake value ratios (SUVRs), and clinical metrics, including tests of general cognitive impairment, executive function, naming, repetition, visuospatial and visuoperceptual function, and parkinsonism. Associations between WMHs and clinical scores were adjusted for age and brain volume to correct for atrophy.ResultTotal WMH burden was similar in PCA and LPA, however, regional differences were identified with PCA having greater subcortical WMH burden in right occipital, parietal, and temporal lobes compared to LPA, and LPA having greater WMH burden in left deep grey and white matter and greater subcortical burden in left parietal lobe compared to PCA. Total WMH burden was greater with older age in both groups but was not related to global PiB SUVR either globally or locally. Greater total WMH was associated with visuoperceptual performance in both cohorts after correcting for atrophy. When assessed regionally, visuoperceptual performance was associated with right subcortical occipital WMH across the cohort.ConclusionRegional distribution of WMHs differ across clinical variants of atypical AD and WMHs may impact clinical outcomes, although further work is needed to determine whether they reflect cerebrovascular disease or regionally specific neurodegenerative changes.

AbstractBackgroundNeurite Orientation Dispersion and Density Imaging (NODDI) is becoming increasingly common as multiband acceleration becomes available for clinical scanning, but fitting the model can be extremely slow. Since the release of the original MATLAB implementation in 2012, three alternatives have become popular: Accelerated Microstructure Imaging via Convex Optimization (AMICO), the Microstructure Diffusion Toolbox (MDT), and the CUDA Diffusion Modelling Toolbox (cuDIMOT). They accelerate fitting through reformulation and/or using GPUs, but the implementation differences raise the question of which approach is best. To our knowledge all previous comparisons lacked knowledge of the true values and used the original implementation as the nominally correct one, with in vivo data. We remedy that using simulations with known NODDI values, in addition to in vivo scans.MethodWe created a software phantom with Neurite Density Index (NDI) values linearly increasing from 0.1 to 1.0 in x, Orientation Dispersion (ODI) from 0 to 1 in y, and Isotropic water Volume Fraction (ISOVF) from 0 to 0.9 in z. We simulated five scans using the ADNI3 advanced diffusion MRI protocol. The phantom had 20 voxels in each direction, and the fiber bundle principal direction randomly varied between the simulations. The simulations were fit by the original, AMICO, MDT, and cuDIMOT implementations, and root mean square errors were calculated as shown in Table 1. A discrepancy measure was also calculated using the brain voxels of three in vivo human scans acquired using the same protocol on a Siemens Prisma, substituting the original implementation’s values for the truth since the latter is unknown for in vivo scans.ResultcuDIMOT had the least error (for ODI < 0.8) and was fastest. The original implementation was a close second in accuracy but much slower. cuDIMOT’s ODI underestimation can be corrected with a transfer function in the noise‐free case, but that approach fails with actual scans.ConclusionThe original or cuDIMOT implementations should be used, with cuDIMOT the favorite when at least one CUDA‐capable GPU is available and the number of scans are large. Correcting cuDIMOT’s ODI underestimation using a different initialization or form of Dawson’s integral should be investigated.

AbstractBackgroundStudies of aging and dementia often acquire brain MRI and PET images, then de‐identify and share these widely with other researchers. It is known that research participants can potentially be re‐identified from brain MRI and CT using face recognition, but this has not been tested with PET imaging.MethodWe generated face reconstruction images of 182 volunteers using their existing amyloid (PiB), tau (FTP), and FDG PET scans from clinical GE PET/CT scanners, and we measured how often commercial automatic face recognition (Microsoft Azure) correctly matched these reconstructions with photographs of their faces. We additionally compared these match rates with face reconstructions from CT (from PET/CT) and MRI. When testing face recognition from PET scans, CT was used only during PET reconstruction, not for face recognition. We also validated our updated mri_reface software, originally developed to de‐identify (“de‐face”) faces in MRI, with new support for PET images. We measured face recognition rates before and after applying mri_reface to PET, CT, and MRI. In addition, we measured effects of de‐facing on biomarker measurements (global and regional SUVR) using 244 ADNI Florbetapir (FBP) amyloid PET scans with two automated pipelines: FreeSurfer 6.0 (PETSurfer) and an in‐house SPM12‐based pipeline.ResultRates of successful face recognition with PET ranged from 32‐41% (Table 1) across tracers. These were lower than MRI (98%) and CT (78%) but still concerning for participant privacy. Using mri_reface reduced face recognition to 0‐3.5% for PET, 5% for CT, and 8% for MRI. mri_reface had little effect on global amyloid SUVR measurements from ADNI PET images (Figure 1). ICC values between original and de‐faced images were 1.00 with biases and median absolute differences < 0.5%, across both pipelines. Effects on individual regions all had ICC values > 0.98 with biases and median absolute differences < 2%.ConclusionFace reconstructions from PET images have sufficient quality for potential re‐identification using publicly available face recognition technology. Research studies should consider using face de‐identification (de‐facing) software on PET images in addition to CT and structural MRI. Our free, automatic mri_reface software greatly reduced the potential for face recognition without substantially affecting SUVR measurements.