Citations

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.

AbstractBackgroundResting state functional connectivity (rsfMRI) studies have shown functional network disruptions in logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) (reduced connectivity within the left temporal language network) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) (reduced connectivity within ventral visual network). However, little is known about how these networks compare and how connectivity differs within and between networks in these atypical Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) phenotypes.MethodFifty‐nine amyloid‐positive PCA patients and eighty‐five amyloid‐positive LPA patients were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, and underwent structural and resting state functional MRI. Spatially preprocessed data was analyzed using the CONN functional connectivity toolbox to explore the default mode network (DMN), salience, sensorimotor, left language, visual and memory networks, which were generated by averaging multiple regions‐of‐interest (ROI) within each network. The data was analyzed at both the voxel‐level and network‐level (ROI‐ROI).ResultVoxel‐level differences in functional connectivity between PCA and LPA were observed in all networks (p<0.05; cluster size, FWE=0.05). PCA showed reduced connectivity in the occipital lobe in visual and memory networks, parietal lobe in language and DMN, and sensorimotor strip in sensorimotor network, particularly on the right, compared to LPA. Conversely, LPA showed reduced connectivity in the frontal cortex in salience, memory, visual and sensorimotor networks, inferior parietal lobe in visual network, and anterior temporal pole and sensorimotor cortex in the language network, compared to PCA. Between network differences (p<0.05; cluster size, FDR=0.05) were observed between groups, with PCA showing reduced connectivity between the visual and sensorimotor networks, while LPA showed reduced connectivity between the language and sensorimotor networks. The DMN was anti‐correlated to the language network in PCA, while it was positively correlated to the language network in LPA. In both phenotypes, the DMN was anticorrelated with the salience network. The visual network in PCA showed connections to all networks, while in LPA, it was only connected to the salience, language and DMN.ConclusionThe atypical AD phenotypes were associated with multiple disruptions in connectivity, both within and between brain networks. Phenotype specific differences in connectivity patterns were noted in visual network for PCA and language network for LPA.

AbstractBackgroundQuantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) can detect iron distribution in the brain by estimating the local tissue magnetic susceptibility of every voxel. Dysregulation of neuronal iron has been correlated with typical Alzheimer’s disease (tAD), but little is known about iron distribution in atypical clinical presentations of AD such as logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA).MethodEleven PCA patients and eight LPA patients were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, and underwent MRI that included a five‐echo gradient echo sequence for calculation of QSM. Mean QSM signal was extracted from gray and white matter for regions‐of‐interest across the brain using the Mayo Clinic Adult Lifespan Template. Hierarchical models were fit per‐region and per‐hemisphere to compare PCA and LPA to each other, to 20 healthy controls, and to 20 patients with tAD recruited by the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center.ResultStrong evidence (posterior probability>0.99) was observed for greater susceptibility in the left middle occipital gyrus and amygdala in both LPA and PCA, and in the right precuneus and inferior temporal gyrus in PCA compared to controls. Moderate evidence for greater susceptibility (posterior probability>0.90) was also observed in the left insula, inferior occipital gyrus, entorhinal cortex, and right inferior parietal gyrus and amygdala in both LPA and PCA, along with right angular gyrus and middle occipital gyrus in PCA and right insula and caudate in LPA, when compared to controls. Comparing between phenotypes, LPA showed moderate evidence for greater susceptibility in the caudate, hippocampus, substantia nigra, left supramarginal gyrus and posterior cingulate compared to PCA, while PCA showed greater susceptibility in the right precuneus compared to LPA. Both LPA and PCA showed moderate‐strong evidence for greater susceptibility than tAD, particularly in medial and lateral parietal regions.ConclusionUnique iron profiles were identified in LPA and PCA within cortical and subcortical structures. These changes are in line with disease‐related neurodegenerative changes in the clinical phenotypes, suggesting that QSM could be an informative marker to study iron deposition in these patients.

AbstractBackgroundThe dynamics of white matter (WM) changes are understudied in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Leveraging tau deposition measured from Tau‐PET, our goal was to study the association between tau and white matter health using NODDI from multi‐shell diffusion MRI (dMRI). Specifically, we focused on the Neurite Density Index (NDI) from NODDI, which in WM captures the signal from axons.MethodWe identified 251 participants (126 cognitively normal, 58 MCI, 67 dementia) from the Mayo ADRC and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging with Aβ‐PET, Tau‐PET, and multi‐shell dMRI who were Aβ‐positive (mean age of 77 years and 55% male). We limited to Aβ‐positive participants because Aβ deposition accelerates tau deposition. For Tau‐PET, we estimated SUVRs from three regions corresponding to Braak I/II, III/IV, and V/VI (Figure 1.a). To understand the associations between Tau‐PET SUVRs at three Braak regions and NDIs at 30 candidate WM tracts, we implemented three analyses methods ‐ Pearson correlation, linear regression, and multilayer perceptron machine learning regression.ResultHigher tau burden in all three Braak regions was associated with lower neurite density in 10 significant WM tracts (Table 1). Interestingly, uncinate fasciculus (UNC) was found significantly associated with all three Braak regions. All three analysis methods consistently showed differential involvement of WM pathways for Braak staging such as ‐ Cingulum adjoining Hippocampus (CGH) for Braak I/II regions, Medial Temporal WM (MTWM) for Braak III/IV regions, and Inferior Occipital WM (IOWM) for Braak V/VI regions (Figure 1.b). The linear regression and machine learning regression models also suggested that WM measurements reflected 18‐35% of variance due to tau depositionConclusionWe found that CGH and UNC WM were the most impacted ROIs associated with Braak I/II regions as expected. UNC, directly connecting anterior temporal lobes to the orbitofrontal cortex, was a key WM tract identified as important for all Braak I‐VI regions and warrants further investigation in the study of AD progression. This study highlights the significant impact tau deposition may have on WM. This work also demonstrates the feasibility of using NODDI as an informative supplementary imaging modality for monitoring AD progression.

AbstractBackgroundThe NIA‐AA research framework group and the IWG both agree that abnormal AD biomarkers are necessary for the diagnosis of AD; however, the groups disagree on the appropriate definition of Alzheimer’s disease. The NIA‐AA framework argues that a CU A+T+ individual has AD pathology and therefore has the disease. The IWG argues that such an individual should be labeled “at risk for AD” because both abnormal biomarkers and clinically significant impairment are required for an AD diagnosis.MethodThe major IWG argument against a biological‐only definition of AD is that some CU A+T+ individuals will die of other causes without experiencing overt symptoms (MCI or dementia) in their lifetime. However, the same statement can be made about any other disease in medicine. The question therefore must be how often will CU A+T+ individuals die without experiencing dementia.ResultMany studies have examined rates of cognitive decline in CU A+ relative to CU A‐ (fewer studies in CU A+T+ vs CU A‐T‐). Studies have examined the risk of incident MCI/dementia in CU A+ relative to CU A‐ (fewer in CU A+T+ vs CU A‐T‐). Relative risk indicates likelihood of an outcome in a particular risk group relative to a reference group; it does not indicate the likelihood in percentage terms that an individual will experience an outcome in their lifetime. It is lifetime risk (i.e., absolute risk) that is needed to address the current controversy and to our knowledge only 2 published studies have estimated lifetime risk associated with AD biomarkers. A recent Mayo Clinic Study of Aging analysis examined lifetime risk of dementia associated with varying levels of amyloid PET, APOE and sex. Among APOE ε4 carriers with high amyloid PET SUVR, remaining lifetime risk of dementia at age 75 years was 76% for women and 64% for men. Lifetime risk of CU A+T+ remains to be determined, however.ConclusionThe major discordance between the NIA‐AA framework and the IWG (the definition of AD) points to the question, how risky is the CU A+T+ state? Accurate estimates of lifetime risk from population‐based studies are needed to address this question.

AbstractBackgroundReduced striatal uptake on ioflupane SPECT is considered an indicative biomarker for Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB), and has been proposed as an indicative biomarker for Mild Cognitive Impairment with Lewy Bodies (MCI‐LB). Little data exists on the profile of uptake on key striatal regions of interest (ROIs) in DLB or MCI‐LB.MethodParticipants with DLB or MCI‐LB at baseline based on the presence of ≥2 core clinical DLB features, and ≥2 ioflupane SPECT scans performed approximately annually, were identified from the Mayo ADRC database. Minimum brain laterality z‐score values for the putamen (whole, anterior and posterior), caudate and striatum were determined using DaTQUANT 2 software. Baseline clinical and scan data was used for all analyses, and the annualized minimum putamen z‐change was determined on serial scans. The scan was considered abnormal if the minimum putamen z‐score was <‐0.98 based on clinicopathologic data.Result27 participants were included (21 DLB and 6 MCI‐LB, 96% male). Compared to MCI‐LB, DLB had a lower mean MoCA score and a trend toward a higher UPDRS score compared to MCI‐LB; there were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, onset age or duration of cognitive decline, or presence of other core DLB features. The majority (89%) had an abnormal scan at baseline. All ROI z‐scores showed the expected general trend of DLB<MCI‐LB, and the annualized z‐change was more negative in DLB, but none of the findings reached statistical significance.ConclusionThese findings suggest in MCI‐LB and DLB that 1) an abnormal ioflupane SPECT scan is frequently present at diagnosis, 2) z‐scores become more negative over time, and 3) the annualized z‐change is similar. Similar findings in larger cohorts would support the use of ioflupane SPECT as a biomarker in both MCI‐LB and DLB clinical trials.

AbstractBackgroundFluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG‐PET) is an established modality for differential diagnosis of dementia. Deriving phenotypic signatures from FDG‐PET via machine learning is challenging due to the high dimensional nature of brain images relative to the generally small number of labeled examples available for training, the class imbalance among those labels, and the cooccurrence of multiple pathologies. In this study, we developed a multi‐class, multi‐label framework to address these challenges.MethodA database of clinically acquired PET/CT images from 3,000 unique patients was used to develop a latent space model using matrix decomposition. This model was then applied to images from a separate cohort of Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center participants (n=1,745) labeled as cognitively unimpaired (CU) (n=1,436) or with the following potentially co‐occurring phenotypes: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) (n=165), Lewy body dementia (DLB) (n=92), behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) (n=43), semantic (svPPA) (n=10) and logopenic (lvPPA) (n=13) variant PPA, and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) (n=17). A k‐nearest neighbors classifier that is robust to these imbalanced and overlapping labels was then trained on these examples. The resulting classifier was evaluated by area under receiver‐operator characteristic curve (ROC‐AUC) via leave one out cross validation, using clinical diagnosis as the gold standard.ResultROC curves and AUC scores for each phenotype are illustrated in Fig. 1a. Because the classifier is based on a k‐nearest neighbors connectivity matrix, it has a convenient graphical representation, where images are nodes and edges are drawn between an image and its set of nearest neighbors in latent space. A self‐organizing force directed graph constructed in this way is illustrated in Fig 1b, highlighting the strong separation of CU and degenerative images, as well as the segregation of each phenotype within the neurodegenerative region of the graph.ConclusionIn this study, we developed a machine learning framework for classification of neurodegenerative disease based on k‐nearest neighbor analysis in a low dimensional latent space projection of FDG‐PET images. By leveraging low‐dimensional representations and k‐nearest neighbors analysis, this framework is robust in multi‐class, multi‐label tasks with strong class imbalance and provides a highly interpretable graphical representation.

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.

AbstractBackgroundIn 2018 we presented the Computational DESH (CDESH) metric (DOI:10.1016/j.nicl.2018.11.015), a machine learning measure of abnormal CSF space patterns commonly observed on MRI in Disproportionately Enlarged Subarachnoid‐space Hydrocephalus (DESH‐type) NPH. We have shown that CDESH positive individuals often have discordant CSF and PET amyloid measures (DOI:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.4921). Positive CDESH scores are predictive of cognitive decline (DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117899, DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008616). The score is calculated from regional CSF volumes in a sulcal atlas and within the ventricles using a support vector machine (SVM). The Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) changed scanner platforms (GE to Siemens) and T1‐weighted image resolution (1.2mm x 1.05mm x 1.05mm to 0.8mm isotropic) in 2017. We refer to these as “isotropic” or “anisotropic” scans. Our objective was to assess the dependence of a machine learning method (specifically CDESH) to image input variation and, if necessary, determine what needed corrections.MethodAll data considered is from the MCSA or Mayo Clinic ADRC. The SVM was trained on anisotropic images with laboriously labelled ground truth. We resampled the isotropic data from a crossover study (N=112, typically scanned same‐day with both platforms/resolutions) to match the anisotropic resolution. Two approaches to correction were evaluated (Figure 1). In Figure 2 we compare of the score with and without correction cross‐sectionally in 998 MCSA participants. In Figure 3 we present longitudinal series from 23 participants with multiple scans using the isotropic resolution protocol and at least one prior anisotropic image.ResultsComparisons of data from the crossover study are presented in Figure 1. Matching voxel resolution to the data used to train the SVM is critical and a subsequent mild linear score adjustment may be warranted. Cross‐sectional comparisons (Figure 2) confirm improvement matching voxel resolution with a possible mild linear score adjustment. After matching voxel resolution CDESH score trajectories (Figure 3) are markedly more stable across this scanner/protocol change.ConclusionThe SVM‐based CDESH score is sensitive to voxel resolution. Corrections are needed in image processing and possibly in the scalar output score to achieve stability across protocol and scanner changes. The resulting correction supports coherent long timeseries data and longitudinal extension of previous work.

AbstractBackgroundDiffusion MRI (dMRI) based quantification of microstructural changes in white matter (WM) are increasingly proposed to measure cerebrovascular disease (CVD) related changes. Our objective was to compare the proposed dMRI markers using postmortem neuropathologic CVD data and then evaluate the predictors of longitudinal dMRI markers using serial scans.MethodWe identified n=51 participants (mean age: 83.8 years, 63% males) with ante‐mortem dMRI and postmortem CVD evaluation and n=718 participants (mean age: 71.1 years, 56% males) with at least two dMRI scans from the population‐based sample of Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. We computed dMRI measures proposed for measuring CVD: Free Water (FW), Fractional Anisotropy (FA) adjusted for FW (FAadj), Peak width Skeletonized Mean Diffusivity (PSMD), and FA of the genu of corpus callosum (Genu‐FA). We used the FW and PSMD (PSMD release 1.8.1) kits from the MarkVCID consortium.Using weighted linear regression models with adjustments for MRI scan time to death, we evaluated associations between the baseline dMRI and two pathology CVD scores: Strozyk (represents the presence and number of macroscopic lesions) and Kalaria (represents the summary score of vessel wall modifications) scales. We ran linear mixed effect models with all available serial dMRI measures as outcomes and vascular risk (measured by the number of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions‐CMC), baseline imaging measures (amyloid and white matter hyperintensities (WMH)) and their interaction with time as key predictors.ResultMost dMRI markers were predictors of postmortem CVD pathology (Table 1). In longitudinal dMRI models, terms associated with amyloid explained little variability in dMRI (<1%) (Table 2). WMH was a significant predictor of baseline and decline in dMRI measures with WMH explaining a considerable percentage of variability in FW (34%) and PSMD (28%). Vascular risk measures were significant predictors of three out of the four dMRI measures.ConclusionThe diffusion measures proposed as surrogate markers of CVD map reasonably well to CVD pathological scales and do not change substantially as a function of baseline amyloidosis. Our findings shed light on variability in the proposed diffusion markers using postmortem data and longitudinal imaging data. Further work is needed to evaluate their clinical utility.