Back to Authors

Rial, Alexis Moscoso

0000-0003-0170-036X

Mayo Clinic

Critical Path Institute

Citations 7

External Validation of Joint Propagation Model‐Based Tau PET CenTauR units
Leuzy, Antoine , Raket, Lars Lau, Villemagne, Victor L., Klein, Gregory , Tonietto, Matteo, Olafson, Emily, Baker, Suzanne L. , Saad, Ziad S., Bullich, Santiago , Lopresti, Brian J. , Sanabria, Sandra , Boada, Mercè, Charil, A., Collins, Emily C., Collins, Jessica, Higuchi, Makoto, Hostetler, Eric D., Hutchison, R. Matthew, Iaccarino, Leonardo, Insel, Philip S., Irizarry, Michael C., Jack, Clifford R., Jagust, William J., Johnson, Keith A., Johnson, Sterling C., Karten, Yashmin, Marquié, Marta, Mathotaarachchi, Sulantha , Mintun, Mark A., Huang, Qi, Mao, Xiaxie, Gnörich, Johannes , Pappas, Ioannis, Petersen, Ronald, Chiotis, Konstantinos, Rabinovici, Gil D., Rosa‐Neto, Pedro, Schwarz, Christopher G, Smith, Ruben, Stephens, Andrew W., Whittington, Alex , Carrillo, M., Pontecorvo, Michael J. , Haeberlein, Samantha Budd , Dunn, Billy , Stephenson, Diane , Tatton, Nadine , Brendel, Matthias, Xie, Fang, Hansson, Oskar H., Rial, Alexis Moscoso , Rakêt, Lars Lau , Villemagne, Victor L. , Tonietto, Mattéo , Olafson, Emily, Lutz, Olivia , Boada, Merce , Betthauser, Tobey J. , Collins, Emily C. , Collins, Jessica, Gunn, Roger N. , Higuchi, Makoto, Hutchison, R. Matthew , Iaccarino, Leonardo , Insel, Philip S. , Irizarry, Michael C. , Jack, Clifford R. , Jagust, William J. , Johnson, Keith A. , Johnson, Sterling C. , Marquié, Marta , Ossenkoppele, Rik , Pappas, Ioannis , Petersen, Ronald C. , Chiotis, Konstantinos , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Rosa-Neto, Pedro , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Smith, Ruben, Stephens, Andrew W., Carrillo, María C. , Kolb, Hartmuth C. , Brendel, Matthias , Xie, Fang , Rowe, Christopher Cleon , Hansson, Oskar , Doré, Vincent

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

10.1002/alz70856_106362 Get It

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.
External Validation of Joint Propagation Model‐Based Tau PET CenTauR units
Leuzy, Antoine , Raket, Lars Lau, Villemagne, Victor L., Klein, Gregory , Tonietto, Matteo, Olafson, Emily, Baker, Suzanne L. , Saad, Ziad S., Bullich, Santiago , Lopresti, Brian J. , Sanabria, Sandra , Boada, Mercè, Charil, A., Collins, Emily C., Collins, Jessica, Gunn, Roger N. , Higuchi, Makoto, Hostetler, Eric D., Hutchison, R. Matthew, Iaccarino, Leonardo, Insel, Philip S., Irizarry, Michael C., Jack, C. R., Jagust, William J., Johnson, Keith A., Johnson, Sterling C., Karten, Yashmin, Marquié, Marta, Mathotaarachchi, Sulantha , Mintun, Mark A., Huang, Q., Mao, Xiaxie, Gnörich, Johannes , Pappas, Ioannis, Petersen, Ronald, Schwarz, Christopher G, Smith, Ruben, Stephens, Andrew , Whittington, Alex , Carrillo, Maria, Pontecorvo, Michael J. , Haeberlein, Samantha Budd , Dunn, Billy , Kolb, H., Stephenson, Diane , Tatton, Nadine , Brendel, M., Xie, Fang, Hansson, Oskar H., Rial, Alexis Moscoso , Rakêt, Lars Lau , Villemagne, Victor L. , Tonietto, Mattéo , Olafson, Emily, Lutz, Olivia , Boada, Merce , Betthauser, Tobey J. , Collins, Emily C. , Higuchi, Makoto, Hutchison, R. Matthew , Iaccarino, Leonardo , Insel, Philip S. , Irizarry, Michael C. , Jack, Clifford R. , Jagust, William J. , Johnson, Keith A. , Johnson, Sterling C. , Marquié, Marta , Ossenkoppele, Rik , Pappas, Ioannis , Petersen, Ronald, Chiotis, Konstantinos , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Rosa-Neto, Pedro , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Kolb, Hartmuth C. , Brendel, Matthias , Rowe, Christopher Cleon , Hansson, Oskar , Doré, Vincent

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

10.1002/alz70862_109722 Get It

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.
Frequency and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Tau Positron Emission Tomography Positivity
Raghavan, Sheelakumari, Costoya‐Sánchez, Alejandro , Mainta, Ismini , Rodríguez-Fonseca, Omar Darío, Perissinotti, Andrés , Gu, Yuna , Yun, Jihwan, Peretti, Débora Elisa , Aguiar, Pablo , Bischof, Gérard N. , Seo, Sang Won , Villeneuve, Sylvia , O’Brien, John T. , Jagust, William, Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Soleimani‐Meigooni, David N. , Carrillo, Marı́a C., Joie, Renaud La , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Apostolova, Liana G. , Pontecorvo, Michael J. , Johnson, Keith A. , Weiner, Michael W. , Petersen, Ronald C., Jack, Clifford R. , Schöll, Michael , Labonté, Anne , Faubert, Anne‐Marie, Mathieu, Axel, Madjar, Cécile , Carrier, Charles Edouard, Kazazian, Christina, Lepage, Claude, Maillet, David , Michaud, Diane, Couture, Doris, Dea, Doris, Courcot, Blandine, Debacker, Clément , Fontaine, David, Knopman, David S. , Multhaup, Gerhard, Maltais, Jean‐Robert, Breitner, John C.S. , Poirier, Judes, Cheewakriengkrai, Laksanun, Sager, Mark A., Dauar‐Tedeschi, Marina, Rajah, Natasha, Aisen, Paul, Toussaint, Paule‐Joanne , Pierre, Bellec, Kostopoulos, Penelope, Étienne, Pierre , Tariot, Pierre N. , Orban, Pierre , Hoge, Rick, Thomas, Ronald J. , Gauthier, Serge , Craft, Suzanne , Montine, Thomas J. , Nair, Vasavan, Bohbot, Véronique D. , Venugopalan, Vinod, Ituria‐Medina, Yasser, Khachaturian, Zaven S., Teigner, Eduard, Anthal, Elena, Yu, Elsa, Ferdinand, Fabiola, Pogossova, Galina, Mayrand, Ginette, Duclair, Guerda, Gagné, Guylaine, Newbold‐Fox, Holly, Leppert, Illana, Tremblay‐Mercier, Jennifer , Frenette, Joanne, Frappier, Josée, Kat, Justin, Miron, Justin , Wan, Karen, Mahar, Laura, Carmo, Leopoldina, Théroux, Louise, Dufour, Marianne, Lafaille‐Magnan, Marie‐Élyse, Savard, Mélissa, Tuwaig, Miranda, Petkova, Mirela, Rioux, Pierre, Meyer, P.T., El‐Khoury, Rana, Gordon, Renee, Giles, Renuka, Das, Samir, Wang, Seqian, Tabrizi, Shirin , Mathotaarachchi, Sulantha , Dubuc, Sylvie, Lee, Tanya , Beaudry, Thomas, Gervais, Valérie, Pagé, Véronique, Desautels, René, Benbouhoud, Fatiha, Saint‐Fort, Eunice Farah, Verfaillie, Sander C.J. , Farzin, Sarah , Salaciak, Alyssa , Tullo, Stéphanie , Daoust, Leslie‐Ann, Köbe, Theresa , McSweeney, Melissa, Nilsson, Nathalie , Pishnamazi, Morteza, Bedetti, Christophe , Hudon, Louise, Greco, Claudia, Chapleau, Marianne , St‐Onge, Frédéric , Boutin, Sophie , Geddes, Maiya R. , Ducharme, Simon , Jean, Gabriel, Sylvain, Elisabeth, Élie, Marie‐Josee, Leblond‐Baccichet, Gloria, Soucy, Jean‐Paul , Ozlen, Hazal , Bailly, Julie, Mohammediyan, Béry, Chen, Yalin , Remz, Jordana, Rentz, Dorene M., Amariglio, Rebecca E. , Blacker, Deborah , Chhatwal, Jasmeer P. , Dickerson, Brad C., Donovan, Nancy J. , Farrell, Michelle E. , Gómez, Cristina Lois, Marshall, Gad A. , Oaoo, Kate, Price, Julie, Prokopiou, Prokopis C. , Reynolds, Gretchen , Skylar-Scott, Irina A., Vila‐Castelar, Clara , Yang, Hyun‐Sik , Trojanowki, John Q., Green, Robert C, Perrin, Richard J. , Shaw, Leslie M. , Potter, William Z. , Bernard, Marie , Jackson, Jonathan, Masliah, Eliezer , Masterman, Donna, Okonkwo, Ozioma, Ryan, Laurie, Silverberg, Nina, Fleisher, Adam , Fockler, Juliet , Conti, Cat, Jin, Chengshi , Nosheny, Rachel L. , Ashford, Mariam, Flenniken, Derek , Kormos, Adrienne, Montine, Tom, Rafii, Michael, Raman, Rema , Gessert, Devon, Salazar, Jennifer, Zimmerman, Caileigh, Cabrera, Yuliana, Walter, Sarah , Miller, Garrett, Coker, Godfrey, Clanton, Taylor, Hergesheimer, Lindsey, Smith, Stephanie , Adegoke, Olusegun, Mahboubi, Payam, Moore, Shelley, Pizzola, Jeremy, Shaffer, Elizabeth , Harvey, Danielle, Forghanian-Arani, Arvin, Borowski, Bret, Ward, Chad, Gunter, Jeff, Kantarci, Kejal, Thompson, Paul , Jahanshad, Neda , DeCarli, Charles , Knaack, Alexander , Fletcher, Evan, Chen, Stephanie R, Choe, Mark, Crawford, Karen , Yuschkevich, Paul A, Reiman, Eric M. , Mathis, Chet, Landau, Susan , Cairns, Nigel J. , Householder, Erin, Franklin, Erin , Bernhardt, Haley, Taylor‐Reinwald, Lisa, Korecka, Magdalena , Figurski, Michal, Neu, Scott, Nho, Kwangsik, Foroud, Tatiana M., Faber, Kelley , Wilmes, Kristi, Thal, Leon J., Dage, Jeffrey L. , Eloyan, Ani , Hammers, Dustin B. , Kirby, Kala, Kramer, Joel, Legarde, Julien, Murray, Melissa E., Newell, Kathy L. , Taurone, Alexander, Thangarajah, Maryanne, Touroutoglou, Alexandra , Clark, David , Day, Gregory S, Duara, Ranjan , Graff-Radford, Neill R, Grant, Ian , Masdeu, Joseph C. , Mendez, Mario F. , Onyike, Chiadi U. , Riddle, Meghan , Rogalskı, Emily , Salloway, Steven, Sha, Sharon J. , Carrillo, María C. , O'Brien, John Tiernan , Jack, Clifford R , Schöll, Michael , La Joie, Renaud , Rabinovici, Gil D , Dage, Jeffrey L , Rial, Alexis Moscoso , Heeman, Fiona , Raghavan, Sheelakumari , Essen, Martijn van , Camacho, Valle , Silva‐Rodríguez, Jesús , Ribaldi, Federica , Coomans, Emma M. , Brum, Wagner Scheeren , Grothe, Michel J. , Drzezga, Alexander E. , Malpetti, Maura , Rowe, James B. , Giessen, Elsmarieke van de , Ossenkoppele, Rik , Smith, Ruben , Hansson, Oskar , Garibotto, Valentina , Dickerson, Bradford Clark , LaMontagne, Pamela , Sperling, Reisa Anne , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Tam, Angela , Binette, Alexa Pichet , Dansereau, Christian , Picard, Cynthia , Michaud, Diane, Couture, Doris, Cuello, A. Claudio , Barkun, Alan , Evans, Alan Charles , Tardif, Christine Lucas , Knopman, David S. , Near, Jamie , Leoutsakos, Jeannie‐Marie , Brandt, Jason , Pruessner, Jens C. , Morris, John C. , Collins, D. Louis , Chakravarty, M. Mallar , Eisenberg, Mark Jeffrey , Rajah, Maria Natasha , Rosa-Neto, Pedro , Bellec, Pierre , Thomas, Ronald, Fonov, Vladimir , Vallee, Isabelle, Vogel, Jacob W. , Dadar, Mahsa , Appleby, Melissa , Meyer, Pierre‐François, Gonneaud, Julie , Pascoal, Tharick Ali , Vachon‐Presseau, Étienne , Spreng, R. Nathan , Rentz, Dorene M. , Buckley, Rachel F. , Gagliardi, Geoffroy Pierre , Gatchel, Jennifer R. , Guzmán‐Vélez, Edmarie , Jacobs, Heidi I.L. , Jutten, Roos J. , Pardilla‐Delgado, Enmanuelle , Price, Julie C. , Quiroz, Yakeel T. , Schultz, Aaron P. , Schultz, Stephanie A. , Sepulcre, Jorge , Vannini, Patrizia , Toga, Arthur W. , Beckett, Laurel , Saykin, Andrew J. , Potter, William, Barnes, Lisa L. , Gonzalez, Hector, Ho, Carole , Hsiao, John , Jackson, Jonathan , Veitch, Dallas P. , Neuhaus, John M , Rafii, Michael S. , Jimenez‐Maggiora, Gustavo Adolfo , Donohue, Michael , Arani, Arvin , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Jones, David T. , Kantarci, Kejal , Senjem, Matthew L. , Reid, Robert I. , Fox, Nick C. , Malone, Ian B. , Thomopoulos, Sophia I. , Nir, Talia M. , Tosun, Duygu , Das, Sandhitsu R. , Koeppe, Robert A. , Chen, Kewei , Risacher, Shannon L. , Shen, Li , Nudelman, Kelly , Ghetti, Bernardino , Grinberg, Lea T. , Hammers, Dustin B , Kirby, Kala, Kukull, Walter A. , Murray, Melissa E. , Polsinelli, Angelina J. , Atri, Alireza , Duara, Ranjan , Graff‐Radford, Neill R. , Honig, Lawrence S. , Johnson, Erik C. B. , Masdeu, Joseph C , Musiek, Erik , Salloway, Steve , Turner, Raymond Scott , Wingo, Thomas S , Wolk, S. J. , Womack, Kyle

JAMA | June 16, 2025 | Volume: 334 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 229

10.1001/jama.2025.7817 Get It

Importance Tau positron emission tomography (PET) allows in vivo detection of neurofibrillary tangles, a core neuropathologic feature of Alzheimer disease (AD). Objective To provide estimates of the frequency of tau PET positivity and its associated risk of clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Longitudinal study using data pooled from 21 cohorts, comprising a convenience sample of 6514 participants from 13 countries, collected between January 2013 and June 2024. Cognitively unimpaired individuals and patients with a clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), AD dementia, or other neurodegenerative disorders were included. Exposures Tau PET with flortaucipir F 18, amyloid-β (Aβ) PET, and clinical examinations. Tau PET scans were visually rated as positive according to a US Food and Drug Administration– and European Medicines Agency–approved method, designed to indicate the presence of advanced neurofibrillary tangle pathology (Braak stages V-VI). Main Outcomes and Measures Frequency of tau PET positivity and absolute risk of clinical progression (eg, progression to MCI or dementia). Results Among the 6514 participants (mean age, 69.5 years; 50.5% female), median follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 years. Of 3487 cognitively unimpaired participants, 349 (9.8%) were tau PET positive; the estimated frequency of tau PET positivity was less than 1% in those aged younger than 50 years, and increased from 3% (95% CI, 2%-4%) at 60 years to 19% (95% CI, 16%-24%) at 90 years. Tau PET positivity frequency estimates increased across MCI and AD dementia clinical diagnoses (43% [95% CI, 41%-46%] and 79% [95% CI, 77%-82%] at 75 years, respectively). Most tau PET–positive individuals (92%) were also Aβ PET positive. Cognitively unimpaired participants who were positive for both Aβ PET and tau PET had a higher absolute risk of progression to MCI or dementia over the following 5 years (57% [95% CI, 45%-71%]) compared with both Aβ PET–positive/tau PET–negative (17% [95% CI, 13%-22%]) and Aβ PET–negative/tau PET–negative (6% [95% CI, 5%-8%]) individuals. Among participants with MCI at the time of the tau PET scan, an Aβ PET–positive/tau PET–positive profile was associated with a 5-year absolute risk of progression to dementia of 70% (95% CI, 59%-81%). Conclusions and Relevance In a large convenience sample, a positive tau PET scan occurred at a nonnegligible rate among cognitively unimpaired individuals, and the combination of Aβ PET positivity and tau PET positivity was associated with a high risk of clinical progression in both preclinical and symptomatic stages of AD. These findings underscore the potential of tau PET as a biomarker for staging AD pathology.
Validation Of the Tau Heterogeneity Evaluation in Alzheimer’s Disease (THETA) Score Using Longitudinal and Histopathology Data
Gebre, Robel K , Raghavan, Sheelakumari , Wiste, Heather J. , Costoya‐Sánchez, Alejandro , Spychalla, Anthony J., Lowe, Val J. , Graff‐Radford, Jonathan, Petersen, Ronald C., Rial, Alexis Moscoso , Heeman, Fiona , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Graff‐Radford, Jonathan , Knopman, David S. , Petersen, Ronald C. , Schöll, Michael , Murray, Melissa E. , Jack, Clifford R. , Vemuri, Prashanthi

Alzheimer's & Dementia | January 3, 2025 | Volume: 20 | Issue: S1 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.091770 Get It

AbstractBackgroundWe recently developed a novel tau‐PET summary measure THETA, capturing regional heterogeneity and identifying tau status, using ground truth visual assessments from a large single‐center cross‐sectional dataset and validated on independent cohorts [1, 2]. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the performance of THETA on longitudinal and histopathology data.MethodWe included longitudinal tau‐PET ([18F]flortaucipir) data from 696 Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) and ADRC participants, with histopathology in n = 90. Fig. 1 shows the model that uses regional standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) and a target of binary class of tau positivity for prediction of THETA. This model was applied to predict tau status on each followup scan. Slopes of the meta‐ROIs’ tau SUVRs and THETA were evaluated by diagnostic group and as a function of baseline amyloid SUVR in discordant CU participants (where meta‐ROI and visual assessments did not match at baseline) and in incident‐THETA+ CU participants (whose THETA moved from below to above 1 over serial tau‐PET scans). We evaluated tau measurements as a function of Braak stages for neurofibrillary tangles.ResultLongitudinal plots of meta‐ROIs for diagnostic groups were very similar, but the expanded range of THETA based on visual positivity prediction clearly identified tau positive or tau‐negative scans. In discordant‐CU (n = 97) and incident‐THETA+ CU participants (n = 14 all amyloid positive at follow‐up but only 65% at baseline), the relationship between baseline amyloid and rate of tau increase was stronger for THETA than temporal meta‐ROI (Fig. 2). Separation between baseline and follow‐up was greater for THETA (t‐statistics = 90) compared to temporal meta‐ROI (t‐statistics = 20) (p<0.01) in the incident‐THETA+ CU participants. THETA showed a slightly stronger association with Braak stage than meta‐ROIs (rho = 0.87 vs. ≤0.83, p<0.05), with better separation of clinical diagnoses (Fig. 3).ConclusionTHETA remained clearly negative or positive in MCI and AD, providing consistent information on underlying etiology of impairment at both baseline and follow‐up. Although binary in its construction, THETA both provided separation of values based on tau status and its change correlated with baseline amyloid burden especially in discordant‐CU where tau deposition is not in typical meta‐ROIs. Further work is needed to confirm if THETA captures early tau changes.
CONCORDANCE BETWEEN VISUAL INTERPRETATION AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF [18F]FLORTAUCIPIR PET IMAGES
Raghavan, Sheelakumari , Sparrman, Kohl Johnson, Costoya‐Sánchez, Alejandro , Mainta, Isminni, Devous, Michael D. , Pontecorvo, Michael J. , Petersen, Ronald C. , Rial, Alexis Moscoso , Heeman, Fiona , Camacho, Valle , Essen, Martijn van , Grothe, Michel J. , Ribaldi, Federica , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Garibotto, Valentina , Jack, Clifford R. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Schöll, Michael

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 25, 2023 | Volume: 19 | Issue: S16 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.080433 Get It

AbstractBackgroundPositron emission tomography (PET) imaging with [18F]flortaucipir allows for in‐vivo visualization of aggregated tau in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The FDA‐approved label for [18F]flortaucipir PET provides a standardized, clinically applicable definition of tau‐PET positivity by visual interpretation. Here, we studied the concordance between this visual interpretation and quantitative approaches employed in research.MethodWe included 2692 participants (cognitively unimpaired [CU] and impaired [CI, MCI or AD dementia]) from four cohorts (Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and ADRC, ADNI, A4, and A05) with available [18F]flortaucipir PET (mean age: 70.2 y, 50.0% females). Three trained readers assessed each [18F]flortaucipir PET scan according to the FDA‐approved method. Visual reads were compared to an established approach for defining tau‐PET positivity based on SUVR values in a temporal meta‐ROI (Jack, et al. Alzheimers Dement. 2017). Previously defined “lenient” (SUVR = 1.22) and “conservative” (SUVR = 1.30) cut‐points were explored. In addition, visual reads were compared to tau‐PET positivity as defined by a scheme based on the expected spatial progression of tau pathology from the medial temporal lobe (MTL) to the temporal neocortex (NEO) (Ossenkoppele, et al. Nat Med. 2022; cut‐points: SUVRMTL = 1.30, SUVRNEO = 1.37).ResultConcordance between visual and quantitative approaches was limited (Figure 1): the “lenient” and MTL‐NEO methods yielded high rates of quantitative‐positive, visual‐negative scans (73‐52% and 26‐18% for CU and CI, respectively), while the “conservative” cut‐point failed to detect 45% and 13% of the CU and CI visual‐positive scans, respectively. The prevalence of tau‐PET positivity in Aβ‐negative individuals was highest with the “lenient” cut‐point (∼24%) and lowest with visual interpretation (∼3%) (Figure 2). Visual‐positive, quantitative‐negative individuals were more frequently Aβ‐positive than visual‐negative, quantitative‐positive individuals (“lenient”: 86% vs 50%, p<0.001; “conservative”: 87% vs 58%, p<0.001; MTL‐NEO: 85% vs 70%, p = 0.005). Among visually‐positive participants, 164 (28%) showed a tau deposition pattern that deviated from the expected MTL to NEO progression (Figure 3).ConclusionVisual and quantitative methods for [18F]flortaucipir PET are non‐exchangeable. Tau‐PET positivity based on visual interpretation aligns better with Aβ‐pathology. A significant number of visually‐positive participants showed a pattern of tau accumulation that deviated from the expected stereotypical spatial progression and was not detected by standard quantitative methods.
Concordance between visual interpretation and quantitative analysis of [18F]flortaucipir pet images
Raghavan, Sheelakumari , Sparrman, Kohl Johnson, Costoya‐Sánchez, Alejandro , Mainta, Isminni, Devous, Michael D. , Pontecorvo, Michael J. , Petersen, Ronald C. , Rial, Alexis Moscoso , Heeman, Fiona , Camacho, Valle , Essen, Martijn van , Grothe, Michel J. , Ribaldi, Federica , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Garibotto, Valentina , Jack, Clifford R. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Schöll, Michael

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 25, 2023 | Volume: 19 | Issue: S10 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.082007 Get It

AbstractBackgroundPositron emission tomography (PET) imaging with [18F]flortaucipir allows for in‐vivo visualization of aggregated tau in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The FDA‐approved label for [18F]flortaucipir PET provides a standardized, clinically applicable definition of tau‐PET positivity by visual interpretation. Here, we studied the concordance between this visual interpretation and quantitative approaches employed in research.MethodWe included 2692 participants (cognitively unimpaired [CU] and impaired [CI, MCI or AD dementia]) from four cohorts (Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and ADRC, ADNI, A4, and A05) with available [18F]flortaucipir PET (mean age: 70.2 y, 50.0% females). Three trained readers assessed each [18F]flortaucipir PET scan according to the FDA‐approved method. Visual reads were compared to an established approach for defining tau‐PET positivity based on SUVR values in a temporal meta‐ROI (Jack, et al. Alzheimers Dement. 2017). Previously defined “lenient” (SUVR = 1.22) and “conservative” (SUVR = 1.30) cut‐points were explored. In addition, visual reads were compared to tau‐PET positivity as defined by a scheme based on the expected spatial progression of tau pathology from the medial temporal lobe (MTL) to the temporal neocortex (NEO) (Ossenkoppele, et al. Nat Med. 2022; cut‐points: SUVRMTL = 1.30, SUVRNEO = 1.37).ResultConcordance between visual and quantitative approaches was limited (Figure 1): the “lenient” and MTL‐NEO methods yielded high rates of quantitative‐positive, visual‐negative scans (73‐52% and 26‐18% for CU and CI, respectively), while the “conservative” cut‐point failed to detect 45% and 13% of the CU and CI visual‐positive scans, respectively. The prevalence of tau‐PET positivity in Aß‐negative individuals was highest with the “lenient” cut‐point (∼24%) and lowest with visual interpretation (∼3%) (Figure 2). Visual‐positive, quantitative‐negative individuals were more frequently Aß‐positive than visual‐negative, quantitative‐positive individuals (“lenient”: 86% vs 50%, p<0.001; “conservative”: 87% vs 58%, p<0.001; MTL‐NEO: 85% vs 70%, p = 0.005). Among visually‐positive participants, 164 (28%) showed a tau deposition pattern that deviated from the expected MTL to NEO progression (Figure 3).ConclusionVisual and quantitative methods for [18F]flortaucipir PET are non‐exchangeable. Tau‐PET positivity based on visual interpretation aligns better with Aß‐pathology. A significant number of visually‐positive participants showed a pattern of tau accumulation that deviated from the expected stereotypical spatial progression and was not detected by standard quantitative methods.
Advancing Tau-PET quantification in Alzheimer's disease with machine learning: introducing THETA, a novel tau summary measure
Gebre, Robel K , Raghavan, Sheela Kumari, Wiste, Heather J. , Sparrman, Kohl L. Johnson, Costoya‐Sánchez, Alejandro , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Spychalla, Anthony J., Lowe, Val J. , Graff‐Radford, Jonathan , Petersen, Ronald C. , Schöll, Michael , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Rial, Alexis Moscoso , Johnson Sparrman, Kohl L, Schwarz, Christopher G , Knopman, David S. , Petersen, Ronald C , Schöll, Michael , Jack, Clifford R , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Heeman, Fiona , Knopman, David S. , Jack, Clifford R.

No container title available | October 18, 2023 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.3.rs-3290598/v1 Get It

Abstract Alzheimer's disease (AD) exhibits spatially heterogeneous 3R/4R tau pathology distributions across participants, making it a challenge to quantify extent of tau deposition. Utilizing Tau-PET from three independent cohorts, we trained and validated a machine learning model to identify visually positive Tau-PET scans from regional SUVR values and developed a novel summary measure, THETA, that accounts for heterogeneity in tau deposition. The model for identification of tau positivity achieved a balanced test accuracy of 95% and accuracy of ≥87% on the validation datasets. THETA captured heterogeneity of tau deposition, had better association with clinical measures, and corresponded better with visual assessments in comparison with the temporal meta-region-of-interest Tau-PET quantification methods. Our novel approach aids in identification of positive Tau-PET scans and provides a quantitative summary measure, THETA, that effectively captures the heterogeneous tau deposition seen in AD. The application of THETA for quantifying Tau-PET in AD exhibits great potential.