Back to Authors

Chiotis, Konstantinos

0000-0002-5679-0297

Mayo Clinic

University of California, San Francisco

Citations 8

Amyloid PET Quantitation and Centiloid Thresholds in the Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease
Soleimani‐Meigooni, David N. , Chiotis, Konstantinos, Allen, Isabel E., Rabinovici, Gil D., Joie, Renaud La , Group, Meta-Centiloid Study, Apostolova, Liana G. , Asken, Breton M., Benzinger, Th., Betthauser, Tobey J., Bluma, Marina, Bombois, Stephanie, Bourgeat, Pierrick, Bouteloup, Vincent , Braskie, Meredith N., Brendel, Matthias, Brickman, Adam M., Bryant, Natalie, Bullich, Santiago , Carrillo, Maria C., Casaletto, Kaitlin, Cash, David M., Chang, Chiung-Chih, CHANG, H L, Chao, Yishu , Collij, Lyduine E., Corrada, Maria M., Craft, Suzanne , Dickerson, Bradford C., Dubois, Bruno, Dufouil, Carole, Fajardo, Alfonso, Farrar, Gill , Fortea, Juan, Frings, Lars , Frisoni, Giovanni B., Gardner, Raquel C., Gnörich, Johannes , Gordon, Brian A., Gu, Yuna , Guan, Yihui, Guo, Tengfei, Hanseeuw, Bernard J., Hansson, Oskar, Harrison, Theresa M., Huang, Qi, Huang, ST , Iaccarino, Leonardo, Ishii, Kazunari, Ishi, Kenji, Jagust, William J., Johnson, Sterling C., Kato, Takashi, Katsumi, Yuta, Kaye, Jeffrey, Kolinger, Guilherme D., Kramer, Joel H. , Landau, Susan M., Landeau, Brigitte, Lao, Patrick J., Lee, Sangwon, Lopresti, Brian J., Lowe, Val J. , Luchsinger, José A., Mao, Xiaoxie, March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L., Meyer, Philipp T., Mezenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C., Franquesa‐Mullerat, María , Nakamura, Akinori, Nordberg, Agneta, O’Brien, John T., O’Bryant, Sid E., Pappas, Ioannis, Peretti, Debora E., Rowe, Christopher C., Rowe, James B., Schwartz, Daniel L., Seo, Sang Won , Shekari, Mahnaz, Smith, Ruben, Snyder, Heather M. , Sokolowski, Andrzej, Sperling, Reisa A., Sun, Pan, Taggett, Jacinda Z., Touroutoglou, Alexandra , Vaillancourt, David E., Giessen, Elsmarieke van de, Vijverberg, Jort, Villemagne, Victor L. , Villeneuve, Sylvia , Wang, Wei-en, Weiner, Michael, Woodworth, Davis, Xiao, Cally , Xie, F, Yoon, Yeojun, Yun, Mijin, Severanc, A4, ABIDE, ADNI*, ADNI-DoD, AgeWell, AIBL, AMYPAD, BACS, BATON, BIOCARD, BLSA, BioFINDER-2, BrANCH, CPAS, DETECT-AD, GEMS, GHABS, HABS, HABS-HD, IDEAS, IMAP, INSIGHT-preAD, Insight46, K-ROAD, LEADS, MCSA, MULNIAD, MEMENTO, SCAN, PREVENT-AD, SPIN,, Corrada, María M. , La Joie, Renaud , Blazhenets, Ganna , Chiotis, Konstantinos , Allen, Isabel Elaine , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Asken, Breton M. , Bejanin, Alexandre , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Betthauser, Tobey J. , Blūma, Marina , Bombois, Stéphanie , Bourgeat, Pierrick , Braskie, Meredith N. , Brendel, Matthias , Brickman, Adam M. , Carrillo, María C. , Casaletto, Kaitlin B. , Cash, David M. , Chang, Chiung‐Chih , Chang, Hsin‐I , Chêne, Geneviève , Chételat, Gaël , Coath, William , Collij, Lyduine , Colmant, Lise , Dickerson, Bradford Clark , Dubois, Bruno , Dufouil, Carole , Fortea, Juan , Garibotto, Valentina , Gordon, Brian A. , Guan, Yihui , Guo, Tengfei , Hanseeuw, Bernard , Hansson, Oskar , Harrison, Theresa M. , Iaccarino, Leonardo , Ishii, Kazunari , Ishii, Kenji, Jagust, William J. , Johnson, Sterling C. , Katsumi, Yuta , Kaye, Jeffrey , Koeppe, Robert A. , Kolinger, Guilherme Domingues , Landau, Susan , Landeau, Brigitte , Lao, Patrick , Lee, Sangwon, Lleó, Alberto , Lopresti, Brian J. , Malpetti, Maura , March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L. , Mézenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C. , Nakamura, Akinori , Nordberg, Agneta , O'Brien, John Tiernan , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Pappas, Ioannis , Quenon, Lisa , Rowe, Christopher Cleon , Rowe, James B. , Rudolph, Marc D. , Salvadó, Gemma , Schott, Jonathan M. , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Shekari, Mahnaz , Silbert, Lisa C. , Smith, Ruben, Sokolowski, Andrzej, Sperling, Reisa Anne , Sun, Pan , Taggett, Jacinda , Toga, Arthur W. , Vaillancourt, David E. , Giessen, Elsmarieke van de , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Villain, Nicolas , Wang, Wei‐en , Weiner, Michael W. , Xie, Fang , Young, Christina B. , Yun, M R

JAMA | July 13, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1001/jama.2026.13116 Get It

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.
Tau topography subtypes account for clinical heterogeneity and longitudinal trajectories in early-onset Alzheimer's disease
Lin, Marlene, Chiotis, Konstantinos , Zhang, J. , Rocha, Salma, Shankar, Ranjani, Amuiri, Alinda, Hammers, Dustin B. , Eloyan, Ani, Kirby, Kala, Koeppe, Robert A, Aisen, Paul, Beckett, Laurel, Kukull, Walter A, Toga, Arthur W, Atri, Alireza, Clark, David, Day, Gregory S, Duara, Ranjan, Graff-Radford, Neill R, Grant, Ian, Honig, Lawrence S, Johnson, Erik C B, Masdeu, Joseph C. , Mendez, Mario F, Onyike, Chiadi U, Riddle, Meghan, Rogalski, Emily, Salloway, Stephen, Sha, Sharon J, Turner, Raymond Scott, Wolk, David A, Womack, Kyle B, Touroutoglou, Alexandra, Vogel, Jacob W, Hoffmann, Thomas J, Carrillo, Maria C, Apostolova, Liana G, Rabinovici, Gil D, Joie, Renaud La , Vogel, Jacob W. , Hammers, Dustin B , Jones, David T , Masdeu, Joseph C , Musiek, Erik , Wingo, Thomas S , Jack, Clifford R , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Dickerson, Bradford Clark , La Joie, Renaud , Chiotis, Konstantinos , Maiti, Piyush , Blazhenets, Ganna , Shankar, Ranjani , Amuiri, Alinda, Eloyan, Ani , Kirby, Kala, Koeppe, Robert A. , Aisen, Paul , Beckett, Laurel , Kukull, Walter A. , Toga, Arthur W. , Atri, Alireza , Clark, David G., Duara, Ranjan , Graff‐Radford, Neill R. , Honig, Lawrence S. , Jones, David T. , Mendez, Mario F. , Onyike, Chiadi U. , Riddle, Meghan , Rogalskı, Emily , Salloway, Stephen , Sha, Sharon J. , Turner, Raymond Scott , Wolk, David A. , Womack, Kyle, Nudelman, Kelly , Touroutoglou, Alexandra , Jack, Clifford R. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Dufault, Suzanne M. , Hoffmann, Thomas J., Carrillo, María C. , Apostolova, Liana G. , Rabinovici, Gil D.

Brain Communications | May 15, 2026 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 3 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/braincomms/fcag176 Get It

Abstract The growing availability of large-scale biomarker datasets has allowed data-driven methods to characterize Alzheimer’s disease biological heterogeneity. However, most prior studies have focused on cohorts of late-onset amnestic cases, leaving early-onset Alzheimer’s disease underexplored. We aimed to characterize tau-PET-based subtypes through a robust data-driven approach in the Longitudinal Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study. Baseline [18F]Flortaucipir PET scans from 365 amyloid-PET-positive participants with sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease were quantified in the left and right medial temporal, lateral temporal, occipital, parietal, and frontal cortices. Tau PET values were z-scored against 85 amyloid-PET-negative cognitively normal age-matched participants and fitted into Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn)—an unsupervised clustering algorithm that simultaneously models subtypes and progression from cross-sectional data. The derived subtypes were subsequently characterized by baseline and longitudinal clinical, cognitive, MRI, tau and amyloid PET features. We identified three tau-PET-based subtypes: on average, Subtype 1/Typical (n = 144, 40%) showed a predominant bilateral temporoparietal pattern typical of Alzheimer’s disease. Subtype 2/Left temporal (n = 111, 31%) showed predominant left temporal binding. Subtype 3/Posterior (n = 104, 29%) showed early and permeating occipitoparietal involvement. Subtypes did not differ in demographics or global amyloid burden, but were relatively more enriched for specific clinical presentations: S1/Typical for amnestic presentations, S2/Left Temporal for primary progressive aphasia, and S3/Posterior for posterior cortical atrophy. Baseline tau PET subtypes aligned with cortical atrophy patterns and domain-specific cognitive impairment. When follow-up tau PET scans were fitted to SuStaIn trained on baseline data, 85.6% (n = 172/201) of participants retained the same subtype classification, indicating subtype temporal stability, and progressed within subtypes by 0.56 ± 0.70 SuStaIn stage/year. Longitudinal voxel-wise linear mixed-effects modelling revealed tau accumulation patterns for each subtype in regions relatively spared at baseline: occipital lobe accumulation predominated in S1/Typical, bilateral frontal and right temporal in S2/Left Temporal, and bilateral frontotemporal lobes in S3/Posterior. All subtypes showed longitudinal increases in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes, but with slower worsening in S3/Posterior compared with the other subtypes. Our findings reveal robust subtypes in sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease characterized by distinct spatiotemporal tau patterns that parallel differences in clinical presentations and trajectories of neurodegeneration. These subtypes extend beyond traditional clinical syndromes and support a more nuanced framework for individualized prognosis and care. Incorporating tau PET subtyping into clinical trial design could enable more targeted therapeutic approaches for this younger population.
Distinct Tau PET Dynamics in Early vs. Late Age-of-Onset Alzheimer’s disease
Chiotis, Konstantinos, Soleimani-Meigooni, David N, Aisen, Paul S, Amuiri, Alinda, Atri, Alireza, Beckett, Laurel, Brickhouse, Michael , Clark, David G, Dage, Jeffrey L, Day, Gregory S, Duara, Ranjan, Eloyan, Ani , Foroud, Tatiana, Graff-Radford, Neill R, Grant, Ian M, Hammers, Dustin B, Honig, Lawrence S, Johnson, Erik C. B., Jones, D. Richard, Kirby, Kala, Koeppe, Robert, Kramer, Joel H, Kukull, Walter A, Leuzy, Antoine , Masdeu, Joseph C., Mendez, Mario F., Musiek, Erik, Nudelman, Kelly N., Onyike, Chiadi U., Riddle, Meghan, Rocha, Salma, Rogalski, Emily, Salloway, Stephen, Schonhaut, Daniel R., Sha, Sharon, Shankar, Ranjani, Taurone, Alexander, Thangarajah, Maryanne, Toga, Arthur W., Touroutoglou, Alexandra, Turner, Raymond Scott, Vemuri, Prashanthi, Wingo, Thomas S., Wolk, David A., Womack, Kyle, Zhang, J. , Carrillo, Maria C., Dickerson, Bradford C., Apostolova, Liana G., Joie, Renaud La, Rabinovici, Gil D., Chiotis, Konstantinos , Blazhenets, Ganna , Soleimani‐Meigooni, David N. , Aisen, Paul , Atri, Alireza , Beckett, Laurel , Clark, David G., Dage, Jeffrey L. , Day, Gregory S. , Duara, Ranjan , Foroud, Tatiana , Graff‐Radford, Neill R. , Hammers, Dustin B , Honig, Lawrence S. , Johnson, Erik C. B. , Jones, David T. , Koeppe, Robert A. , Kramer, Joel H. , Kukull, Walter A. , Lagarde, Julien , Maiti, Piyush , Masdeu, Joseph C , Mendez, Mario F. , Musiek, Erik , Nudelman, Kelly , Onyike, Chiadi U. , Riddle, Meghan , Rogalskı, Emily , Salloway, Stephen, Schonhaut, Daniel R. , Sha, Sharon J. , Shankar, Ranjani , Taurone, Alexander, Thangarajah, Maryanne, Toga, Arthur W. , Touroutoglou, Alexandra , Turner, Raymond Scott , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Wingo, Thomas S , Wolk, David A. , Womack, Kyle , Carrillo, María C. , Dickerson, Bradford Clark , Apostolova, Liana G. , Joie, Renaud La , Rabinovici, Gil D.

No container title available | January 26, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.64898/2026.01.25.26344738 Get It

Abstract Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) and Late-onset AD (LOAD) differ in clinical presentations and rates of progression. We aimed to compare baseline and longitudinal tau PET burden, and their relationship with clinical variables in amyloid-PET positive, cognitively impaired participants from the Longitudinal Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study (EOAD; n=390) and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (LOAD; n=211). Patients with EOAD showed higher baseline tau PET retention, broader neuroanatomical involvement and faster accumulation rates over time compared to LOAD, after adjusting for amyloid load and clinical stage. Tau PET showed stronger correlations with baseline amyloid burden and clinical measures of global cognition and function in EOAD than LOAD. We conclude that earlier age of onset in AD is linked to a more aggressive tauopathy, which in turn is a primary driver of clinical decline. These findings suggest that optimal therapeutic targets and strategies may differ between EOAD and LOAD. One Sentence Summary Younger patients with Alzheimer’s disease show more aggressive tau spread, suggesting age of onset defines distinct disease pathways with key clinical implications.
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.
Tablet‐based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT) in a multisite study of early‐onset Alzheimer's disease
Njamnshi, Wepnyu Yembe , Chiotis, Konstantinos , Tsoy, Elena , Blazhenets, Ganna , Maiti, Piyush , Zhang, J. , Allen, Isabel Elaine , Rocha, Salma, Shankar, Ranjani , Amuiri, Alinda, Lawson, Mawuli, Aisen, Paul , Eloyan, Ani , Hammers, Dustin B. , Kirby, Kala, Koeppe, Robert, Toga, Arthur W., Clark, David A. , Day, Gregory S. , Duara, Ranjan , Graff‐Radford, Neill R., Grant, Ian , Johnson, Erik C. B. , Masdeu, Joseph C. , Mendez, Mario F. , Onyike, Chiadi U. , Riddle, Meghan , Rogalskı, Emily , Salloway, Steven, Sha, Sharon J. , Turner, Raymond Scott , Wingo, Thomas S. , Kramer, Joel H. , Touroutoglou, Alexandra , Brickhouse, Michael , Jack, Clifford R. , Taurone, Alexander, Thangarajah, Maryanne, Carrillo, Marı́a C., Apostolova, Liana G. , Possin, Katherine L. , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Joie, Renaud La , Carrillo, María C. , Zhang, Jiaxiuxiu , Dickerson, Bradford Clark , La Joie, Renaud , Jack, Clifford R , Day, Gregory S , Rabinovici, Gil D , Blazhenets, Ganna , Wingo, Thomas S , Chiotis, Konstantinos , Rocha, Salma, Lawson, Mawuli, Beckett, Laurel , Hammers, Dustin B , Kirby, Kala, Kukull, Walter A. , Toga, Arthur W. , Atri, Alireza , Clark, David, Duara, Ranjan , Graff‐Radford, Neill R. , Honig, Lawrence S. , Jones, David T. , Masdeu, Joseph C , Musiek, Erik , Salloway, Steve , Wolk, David A. , Womack, Kyle , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Nudelman, Kelly

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 15, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 12 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.71012 Get It

Abstract INTRODUCTION Brief digital cognitive measures may be a valuable and scalable alternative to traditional tests for improving early detection and disease monitoring in patients with early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD). METHODS We examined the convergent, diagnostic, and neuroanatomical validity of Tablet‐based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT) tests in the multisite Longitudinal Early‐Onset Alzheimer's Disease Study. Four hundred seventy‐five participants from 16 sites (83 cognitively unimpaired participants, 146 individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and 246 with mild dementia) underwent TabCAT testing, including two executive/attentional tasks (Match and Flanker) and two visuospatial tasks (Line Length and Line Orientation). RESULTS TabCAT tests showed good convergent validity with traditional pen‐and‐paper tests. Match was the most accurate TabCAT test in differentiating among clinical groups (controls vs. MCI vs. dementia) and predicting amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) positivity in clinically impaired participants. TabCAT tests were associated with regional tau PET patterns. DISCUSSION TabCAT digital measures have promise for frontline identification of patients with EOAD. Highlights Four hundred seventy‐five participants from 16 US sites underwent tablet‐based cognitive assessment. Digital tests assessed executive function and visuospatial abilities. Digital tests correlated with traditional pen‐and‐paper cognitive tests. Match (test of executive function) differentiated clinical groups. Digital tests were associated with amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) status and regional tau PET patterns.