Citations

Abstract Background In recent years, blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) have transformed the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with some now approaching readiness for clinical implementation. This progress aligns with the growing importance of accurate early diagnostics and availability of anti‐Aβ therapies for the treatment of early symptomatic AD, reinforcing the need for more rapid and early diagnostic capabilities. To address this need, the Alzheimer’s Association convened a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, subject‐matter specialists, and guideline methodologists to conduct a systematic review and develop evidence‐based recommendations for the use of BBMs in the diagnostic evaluation of AD. The scope of this guideline is focused on individuals with cognitive impairment ‐ either MCI or dementia ‐ who are undergoing diagnostic assessment in secondary or tertiary care settings. Method The panel conducted a systematic review to assess BBMs' diagnostic test accuracy in detecting amyloid pathology for triaging (≥90% sensitivity, ≥75% specificity) and confirmatory (≥90% sensitivity and specificity) diagnostic workup. The BBMs of interest included plasma p ‐tau and Aβ tests measuring the following analytes: p ‐tau217, % p ‐tau217, p ‐tau181, p ‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio. The reference standard tests included CSF, amyloid PET, or neuropathology examination. The panel applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the GRADE Evidence‐to‐Decision Framework to develop its recommendations. Result Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were evaluated. Using predefined decision thresholds, the panel determined whether each test has 1) sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to be used as a triaging test where a positive test is to be confirmed by PET or CSF, 2) sufficient diagnostic test accuracy as a confirmatory test to replace PET or CSF, or 3) insufficient diagnostic test accuracy to recommend current use in clinical practice. Recommendations will be provided in case any BBMs met a priori DTA thresholds. Conclusion BBMs can improve early AD diagnosis and expand access to disease‐modifying therapies. Evidence‐based guidelines are key to standardizing their use and will be updated as new evidence and applications emerge.

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 Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) is often misdiagnosed or conflated with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) due to overlapping clinical presentations and neuropathological features. The presence of AD‐like features correlates with accelerated cognitive decline and a worse overall prognosis. Compared to AD, studies suggest that amyloid uptake in DLB may spare the occipital lobe. This project aims to investigate whether amyloid PET could be leveraged to differentiate between AD and DLB patients, with the goal of improving diagnostic accuracy and supporting patient stratification and safety in anti‐amyloid trials. Method This study involves collaboration across six centres (University of Geneva, BioFINDER, AMPLE, AMYPAD PNHS, MCSA, GEHC), each contributing amyloid PET imaging data from patients diagnosed with DLB based on clinical or neuropathological assessments. Moreover, each center provided an additional subset of AD and healthy controls, then matched to DLB samples based on age/sex/APOE genotype/education for comparison. A sub analysis will be performed on patients with evidence of both DLB and AD markers. Given the relatively small sample size, key aspect of the methodological approach is to reduce technical sources of variability. The processing workflow includes rigorous quality control, formatting, normalisation to MNI space, harmonisation (differential smoothing), and MRI‐based segmentation. Result The dataset currently includes amyloid PET scans (acquired using [ 11 C]PiB, [ 18 F]Flutemetamol or [ 18 F]Florbetapir) and MRI scans from ∼130 DLB patients, along with ∼150 AD patients and ∼150 controls. In addition, 99 patients positive for the CSF α‐Synuclein Seeding Amplification Assay were included. Patient data were anonymized, and a harmonised database was created, including demographic characteristics, clinical history, and results from neuropsychological assessments. Conclusion The creation of a standardized, multi‐centre amyloid PET dataset for DLB will enable the study of amyloid PET patterns at the global, regional and voxel level, in comparison with uptake in AD patients and controls. This dataset will serve as a valuable resource for investigating the neuropathological underpinnings of DLB, improving diagnostic accuracy, and potentially guiding patient stratification in anti‐amyloid trials. Efforts to integrate [ 18 F]Florbetaben and additional data are ongoing.

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.

Introduction: Mass casualty incident (MCI) simulation scenarios are developed based on detailed review and planning by multidisciplinary trauma teams. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using generative artificial intelligence (AI) in developing mass casualty trauma simulation scenarios. The study evaluated a range of mass casualty trauma simulation scenarios generated from a public generative artificial intelligence platform based on publicly available data with a validated objective simulation scoring tool. Methods: Using a large language model (LLM) platform (ChatGPT4, OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), 10 complex MCI trauma simulation scenarios were generated based on publicly available US reported trauma data. Each scenario was evaluated by two Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) certified raters based on the Simulation Scenario Evaluation Tool (SSET), a validated scoring tool out of 100 points. The tool scoring is based on learning objectives, tasks for performance, clinical progression, debriefing criteria, and resources. Two publicly available mass casualty trauma scenarios were similarly evaluated as controls. Revision and recommended feedback was provided for the scenarios, with review time recorded. Post-revision scenarios were evaluated. Interrater reliability was calculated based on Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (2, k) (ICCs). For the scenarios, scores and review times were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) as 25th and 75th percentiles. Results: Ten mass casualty trauma simulation scenarios were generated by an LLM, producing a total of 62 simulated patients. The initial LLM-generated scenarios demonstrated a median SSET score of 78.5 (IQR 74–82), substantially lower than the median score of 94 (IQR 93–95) observed in publicly available scenarios. The interrater reliability ICC for the LLM-generated scenarios was 0.965 and 1.00 for publicly available scenarios. Following secondary human revision and iterative refinement, the LLM-generated scenarios improved, achieving a median SSET score of 94 (IQR 93–96) with an interrater reliability ICC of 0.7425. Conclusions: The feasibility study suggests that a structured, collaborative workflow combining LLM-based generation with expert human review may enable a new approach to mass casualty trauma simulation scenario creation. LLMs hold promise as a scalable tool for the development of MCI training materials. However, consistent human oversight, quality assurance processes, and governance frameworks remain essential to ensure clinical accuracy, safety, and educational value.

ABSTRACT Background Proton beam therapy (PBT) offers dosimetric advantages in pediatric radiotherapy by reducing radiation exposure to healthy tissues. However, broad implementation raises important ethical, logistical, and equity considerations, especially in settings with limited access to advanced technologies. Procedure This position paper by the Paediatric Radiation Oncology Society (PROS) reviews the clinical rationale for selecting radiotherapy modalities in children, with a specific focus on ethical utilization of PBT. The document synthesizes evidence on the benefits and limitations of modern photon and proton therapies, explores disparities in access, outlines the role of local pediatric radiation oncologists, and addresses the impact of industry‐driven messaging on family decision‐making. Results While PBT offers clinical benefit in selecting pediatric cancers, high‐quality photon‐based treatments such as IMRT and VMAT remain effective and widely accessible alternatives. The referral and evaluation process for PBT is complex and may introduce treatment delays. Travel and financial burdens can exacerbate disparities. PROS underscores the critical role of local pediatric radiation oncologists in counseling families, and calls for balanced, evidence‐based communication from providers and industry stakeholders. Conclusions PROS advocates for an ethical, equitable, and evidence‐informed approach to radiotherapy modality selection in children, reflecting holistic considerations beyond dosimetry. Proton therapy should be pursued when clinically indicated and accessible without compromising timely care. Investment in a comprehensive radiation therapy infrastructure, including professional education, collaborative research, and responsible public messaging, is essential to optimize pediatric cancer outcomes globally.

Background The association between lifestyle factors and Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology remains incompletely understood. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the association of alcohol consumption, smoking behavior, sleep quality and physical, cognitive, and social activity with cerebral amyloid pathology. Methods For this cross-sectional study, we selected participants from the Amyloid Biomarker Study data pooling initiative. We used generalized estimating equations to assess associations of dichotomized lifestyle measures with amyloid pathology. Results We included 9171 participants with normal cognition (NC) and 2555 participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from the Amyloid Biomarker Study. Of participants with NC, 58% were women, 34% were APOE ε4 carrier, and 27% had amyloid pathology. Of participants with MCI, 48% were women, 47% were APOE ε4 carrier, and 57% had amyloid pathology. In NC, cognitively active participants were less likely to have amyloid pathology (OR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.66–0.89, p < 0.001). In MCI, participants who had ever smoked or had sleep problems were less likely to have amyloid pathology (OR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.73–0.99, p = 0.029; OR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.45–0.86, p = 0.004). Conclusions In NC, cognitive activity was associated with a lower frequency of amyloid pathology. In MCI, favorable lifestyle behaviors were not associated with a lower frequency of amyloid pathology. The results of the current study contribute to the broader evidence base on lifestyle and AD by further characterizing the role of lifestyle behaviors in AD pathology across different clinical stages.

Abstract BACKGROUND This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) for detecting Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The overarching goal is to inform the development of a clinical practice guideline, led by the Alzheimer's Association, for use in clinical practice. METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted from January 2019 to November 2024. Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p‐tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p‐tau217, %p‐tau217, p‐tau181, p‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. Pooled diagnostic test accuracy measures were calculated, including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Across a range of pre‐test probabilities, we evaluated how much a positive or a negative test result would lead to a change in the probability of having amyloid positivity (post‐test probability). All analyses were conducted for each test within each biomarker. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were examined. When evaluated using a single cut‐point, the diagnostic test accuracy varied considerably across tests: the pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.2–57.4) to 91.4% (95% CI: 86.6–94.6), and the pooled specificity ranged from 61.5% (95% CI: 45.6–75.3) to 96.7% (95% CI: 87.8–99.2). Differences in post‐test probability based on a range of pre‐test probabilities varied greatly across tests. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence across tests ranged from moderate to very low. Most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, particularly in domains related to patient selection, index test conduct, and reference standard. CONCLUSION This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs for detecting AD pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The findings serve as a foundation for an accompanying clinical practice guideline that provides evidence‐based recommendations for BBM use in the clinical diagnostic pathway. Given continuous developments in this rapidly evolving field, ongoing evaluation will be critical to ensure the synthesized evidence and clinical guidelines remain up to date and maintain clinical relevance. Highlights This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of blood‐based biomarker (BBM) tests specifically in individuals with objective cognitive impairment seen in specialized care settings. Across 49 studies, BBM test performance varied widely. Pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% to 91.4% and specificity from 61.5% to 96.7%, depending on the analyte and assay platform. This review followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence. This review served as the evidence base for the Alzheimer's Association's new clinical practice guidelines on BBMs, providing structured, evidence‐based guidance for implementing BBMs in the diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer's disease. The review underscores that BBM test performance is assay‐ and platform specific and advises clinicians and laboratory directors to interpret results in the context of the specific test used and integrate the results with a comprehensive clinical assessment.

Background: Breast cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) and traditional risk models (e.g., the Gail model [Gail]) are known to contribute largely independent information, but it is unclear how the overlap varies by ancestry, age, disease type (invasive breast cancer, DCIS), and risk threshold. Methods: In a retrospective case–control study, we evaluated risk prediction performance in 180,398 women (161,849 of European ancestry; 18,549 of Asian ancestry). Odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were estimated. Results: PRS for invasive disease showed a stronger association in younger (<50 years) women (OR = 2.51, AUC = 0.622) than in women ≥ 50 years (OR = 2.06, AUC = 0.653) of European ancestry. PRS performance in Asians was lower (OR range = 1.62–1.64, AUC = 0.551–0.600). Gail performance was modest across groups and poor in younger Asian women (OR = 0.94–0.99, AUC = 0.523–0.533). Age interactions were observed for both PRS (p < 0.001) and Gail (p < 0.001) in Europeans, whereas in Asians, age interaction was observed only for Gail (invasive: p < 0.001; DCIS: p = 0.002). PRS identified more high-risk individuals than Gail in Asian populations, especially ≥50 years, while Gail identified more in Europeans. Overlap between PRS, Gail, and family history was limited at higher thresholds. Calibration analysis, comparing empirical and model-based ROC curves, showed divergence for both PRS and Gail (p < 0.001), which indicates miscalibration. In Europeans, family history and prior biopsies drove Gail discrimination. In younger Asians, age at first live birth was influential. Conclusions: PRS adds value to risk stratification beyond traditional tools, especially in younger women and Asian ancestry populations.