Mormino, Elizabeth C.

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.

Abstract Histopathological assessment has served as the gold standard for diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Emerging technological advancements, including the development of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), have enabled early detection of amyloid pathology, one of the neuropathological hallmarks of AD. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) across cohorts of aging and AD, leveraging different measurements of amyloid burden, may facilitate the identification of novel genetic variants that drive the earliest neuropathological changes in AD. This study presents the largest GWAS of brain amyloidosis to date, leveraging amyloid β (Aβ) measured by in vivo amyloid PET and postmortem histopathology from 13,555 individuals of European ancestry. Amyloid positivity was defined as moderate or frequent neuritic plaques according to the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) staging scores for each postmortem cohort. A Gaussian mixture model (GMM) was applied to each amyloid PET cohort to identify the cohort and tracer-specific cut-offs that differentiate amyloid positive and negative populations. In silico and ex vivo analyses further characterized implicated loci, including interrogating the association between bulk and single-nucleus gene expression profiles and AD-related traits. Genetic covariance analysis assessed the extent amyloid PET and postmortem measures reflect the shared genetic architecture of brain amyloidosis. Our combined amyloidosis GWAS identified three established AD risk loci: BIN1 (rs6733839, OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.14-1.26, P = 1.32 × 10−11), CR1 (rs4844610, OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.16-1.32, P = 4.21 × 10−10), APOE (rs429358, OR = 4.01, 95% CI = 3.66-4.38, P = 4.54 × 10−201), and a newly identified brain amyloidosis-associated variant on chromosome 17 (rs35635959, OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.12-1.25, P = 1.47 × 10−8). SuSiE fine-mapping identified a single credible set of 15 putative causal variants with rs35635959 as the lead variant. Subsequent eQTL and SuSiE-based colocalization analyses prioritized rs35635959 as a strong eQTL for TUBG2, encoding tubulin gamma 2, which is involved in microtubule organization and synaptic plasticity. Further cell-type-specific characterization of this gene in neurons from dorsolateral prefrontal cortex tissue indicated that decreased TUBG2 expression was associated with increased Aβ burden and AD case status (PFDR < 0.045). Furthermore, our study is the first to report a modest genetic covariance (covariance=0.17, P < 6.54 × 10−8) between the genetic architecture of amyloid burden captured by different modalities. While APOE showed a strong association with both amyloid endophenotypes, the observed genetic covariance was not substantially attenuated after excluding variants within the APOE region (covariance=0.16, P < 1.32 × 10−7). Our results highlight the benefits of leveraging compatible, harmonized AD endophenotypes to increase power to uncover new molecular insights into the etiology of AD neuropathology. Wang et al. present the largest GWAS of brain amyloidosis to date, analysing 13,555 individuals using amyloid PET and postmortem Aβ measures. They identify a novel amyloidosis-associated variant on chromosome 17, demonstrate genetic covariance between modalities, and highlight complex traits sharing genetic architecture with Aβ burden.

Abstract The genetic contributions of the X chromosome to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) remain poorly understood yet are expected to importantly shape sex differences in AD. We therefore performed large-scale X-chromosome-wide association studies (N=1,240,451), evaluating differential risk due to sex, APOE *4, and escape from X-chromosome inactivation, finding most X-linked loci appear relevant to female-biased AD etiology. In evaluating genetic pleiotropy with hormonal, lipid, and brain imaging traits, we discovered X-linked AD loci converged on white matter traits, particularly in the anterior corona radiata and splenium of the corpus callosum. Through brain-centric functional genomics analyses, we then nominated candidate causal genes, including 5 that appeared highly robust. Notably, we found the escape gene RBBP7 decreases AD risk in APOE *4 carriers likely through higher expression in excitatory neurons to counter tau-related neurodegeneration. Altogether, we provide an atlas of sex and APOE *4-informed candidate X-linked AD risk loci, genes, and mechanisms that will guide future studies.

Abstract Background PET visual reads for multi‐center studies are conducted centrally by one or a few experts. In CLARiTI, a broader network of raters will perform the reads, necessitating methods to ensure their accuracy and reliability. Method All ADRC sites ( N = 37) will prospectively acquire amyloid PET scans for 800 cognitively unimpaired and 1200 cognitively impaired participants. Each site can use one of four amyloid PET tracers ([ 18 F]florbetaben, [ 18 F]florbetapir, [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). PET scans will be visually interpreted by ten PET neuroimaging experts located across eight ADRCs, using their preferred hardware, software, and file format (DICOM, NIFTI). Calibration requires readers to perform blinded, independent visual interpretation of 180 amyloid PET scans (30 unique and 15 duplicate scans per tracer), previously read and selected by an expert (Table 1). An even mix of visually non‐elevated and elevated scans were selected, with quantitation spanning ‐26‐123 Centiloids (Figure 1), and 15% were visually borderline (similar proportion to ADNI4), with quantitation spanning 4‐48 Centiloids (mean 21). Kruskal‐Wallis H test showed no significant difference in the distribution of Centiloid values for scans in each tracer group, Χ 2 (3)=2.133, p = 0.545. Result Calibration scans were read by a second expert not serving in CLARiTI. There was 97% concordance and almost perfect agreement between readers (κ=0.932, p <0.001; Figure 2). Discordantly read scans were visually borderline elevated ( N = 2), borderline non‐elevated ( N = 1), and negative ( N = 1), with quantitation of 8‐21 Centiloids (mean 14). Intra‐rater reads were 98% concordant and had almost perfect agreement (κ=0.966, p <0.001). These findings hold promise for scaling‐up visual reads in CLARiTI, and we expect ≥80% concordance and substantial to almost perfect agreement (κ≥0.7) for inter/intra‐rater reliability. Conclusion Calibration is essential for accurate/reliable amyloid PET visual reads in large multi‐center studies with multiple raters. Through the calibration process, we will develop methods to improve the adjudication of borderline/challenging scans and formalize methods for visual reads of amyloid PET tracers that are investigational (i.e., [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). Involving multiple raters across different sites, who use diverse hardware/software/file format combinations, will mirror the natural heterogeneity present in real‐world clinical practice. This calibration set can also serve as a standardized training tool for other studies incorporating amyloid PET visual reads.

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 INTRODUCTION We standardized positron emission tomography (PET) data across multiple cohorts and tracers to characterize the frequency of amyloid and tau PET severity along the clinical continuum. METHODS Clinical stage was defined using cohort‐specific criteria and included cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia. Amyloid severity was staged using Centiloids (CL). Tau severity was staged using a hierarchical Braak‐based schema. The cumulative probabilities of PET‐based stages were estimated using ordinal logistic regressions. RESULTS Among 10,396 individuals (mean [standard deviation] age: 71.9 [7.1] years), amyloid levels ≥ 25 CL increased with age among CU and MCI, while amyloid levels ≥ 100 CL were most common in dementia. In 3295 with tau PET, tau severity increased with amyloid and clinical stage and showed complex associations with age. Within each clinical stage, the full spectrum of amyloid and tau PET severity was observed. DISCUSSION PET‐based staging revealed heterogeneous amyloid and tau burden along the clinical continuum. Highlights PET‐based staging is feasible across multiple cohorts and PET tracers. There is heterogeneity in amyloid and tau severity across the clinical spectrum. The frequency of amyloid and tau PET severity increased with clinical severity. The likelihood of tau PET severity differed by age, amyloid, and clinical severity.

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 PET visual reads for multi‐center studies are conducted centrally by one or a few experts. In CLARiTI, a broader network of raters will perform the reads, necessitating methods to ensure their accuracy and reliability. Method All ADRC sites ( N = 37) will prospectively acquire amyloid PET scans for 800 cognitively unimpaired and 1200 cognitively impaired participants. Each site can use one of four amyloid PET tracers ([ 18 F]florbetaben, [ 18 F]florbetapir, [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). PET scans will be visually interpreted by ten PET neuroimaging experts located across eight ADRCs, using their preferred hardware, software, and file format (DICOM, NIFTI). Calibration requires readers to perform blinded, independent visual interpretation of 180 amyloid PET scans (30 unique and 15 duplicate scans per tracer), previously read and selected by an expert (Table 1). An even mix of visually non‐elevated and elevated scans were selected, with quantitation spanning ‐26‐123 Centiloids (Figure 1), and 15% were visually borderline (similar proportion to ADNI4), with quantitation spanning 4‐48 Centiloids (mean 21). Kruskal‐Wallis H test showed no significant difference in the distribution of Centiloid values for scans in each tracer group, Χ 2 (3)=2.133, p = 0.545. Result Calibration scans were read by a second expert not serving in CLARiTI. There was 97% concordance and almost perfect agreement between readers (κ=0.932, p <0.001; Figure 2). Discordantly read scans were visually borderline elevated ( N = 2), borderline non‐elevated ( N = 1), and negative ( N = 1), with quantitation of 8‐21 Centiloids (mean 14). Intra‐rater reads were 98% concordant and had almost perfect agreement (κ=0.966, p <0.001). These findings hold promise for scaling‐up visual reads in CLARiTI, and we expect ≥80% concordance and substantial to almost perfect agreement (κ≥0.7) for inter/intra‐rater reliability. Conclusion Calibration is essential for accurate/reliable amyloid PET visual reads in large multi‐center studies with multiple raters. Through the calibration process, we will develop methods to improve the adjudication of borderline/challenging scans and formalize methods for visual reads of amyloid PET tracers that are investigational (i.e., [ 11 C]PIB, [ 18 F]NAV4694). Involving multiple raters across different sites, who use diverse hardware/software/file format combinations, will mirror the natural heterogeneity present in real‐world clinical practice. This calibration set can also serve as a standardized training tool for other studies incorporating amyloid PET visual reads.

Abstract INTRODUCTION New methods estimate amyloid positivity onset age (EAOA) from amyloid positron emission tomography (PET). We explore the genetics of EAOA to identify molecular factors underlying the earliest Alzheimer's disease (AD) changes. METHODS Harmonized amyloid PET data from 4216 participants were used in genome‐wide survival, tissue‐specific gene expression, and genetic covariance analyses of EAOA. RESULTS Variants in apolipoprotein E ( APOE ), ABCA7 , and RASGEF1C associated with earlier EAOA. APOE ε4/ε4 and ε3/ε4 converted 6.3 and 5 years earlier than ε3/ε3, respectively. ε2 was protective against earlier EAOA. rs4147929, an expression quantitative trait locus for ABCA7 , associated with a 4 year earlier EAOA. This variant was associated with lower brain expression of ABCA7 , which was associated with increased amyloid pathology at autopsy. Multiple immune‐related diseases shared genetic covariance with EAOA. DISCUSSION APOE , ABCA7 , and RASGEF1C associated with earlier EAOA, with supporting evidence from tissue‐specific expression analyses, offering insights into intervenable targets at early stages of AD. Highlights Novel methods estimate how long ago a patient converted to amyloid positivity. Estimating this amyloid clock allows us to determine the onset of the earliest Alzheimer's disease changes. We evaluated what genes influence when someone converts to amyloid positivity. Apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) , ABCA7 , and RASGEF1C associated with earlier age of amyloid positivity. Genetic results were supported by tissue‐specific expression analyses.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The Consortium for Clarity in Alzheimer's disease related dementias (ADRD) Research Through Imaging (CLARiTI) is a study that aims to collect standardized imaging and plasma biomarkers on 2000 Clinical Core participants enrolled across all Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRC) sites. We sought to summarize the known heterogeneity across centers regarding scientific focus and initial enrollment plans for CLARiTI. METHODS We developed and distributed a survey capturing information on the 36 CLARiTI site's theme/expertise, recruitment plans, and the intersection of CLARiTI with other ADRC imaging efforts. RESULTS Anticipated CLARiTI enrollees spanned 11 different categories of suspected etiologies underlying impairment. A wide range of risk factors were endorsed across sites regarding the enrollment of unimpaired individuals. Variability also existed regarding site‐level strategies in enrollment into CLARiTI versus other imaging efforts. DISCUSSION We anticipate that the 2000 individuals that will enroll into CLARiTI will reflect the clinical heterogeneity already in place across the ADRC network. Highlights The ADRC Consortium for Clarity in ADRD Research Through Imaging (CLARiTI) will leverage and contribute to the existing Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRC) program by supporting standardized imaging and plasma collection across all centers. We summarize the variation in scientific focus and enrollment plans across ADRC sites participating in CLARiTI. The anticipated CLARiTI cohort will reflect the clinical heterogeneity that already exists across the ADRC network. CLARiTI will contribute to scientific goals related to the detection of multi‐etiological signatures relevant for Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRDs).