Landau, Susan

Abstract Background Prior studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker disclosure have answered important questions about individuals’ experiences learning amyloid results. In comparison, the experiences of individuals performing AD biomarker disclosure have been under characterized. The present study examines the clinician experience disclosing amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) results within the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative's ADNI‐4 study. Methods The ADNI‐4 longitudinal cohort study includes a pragmatic process for amyloid PET disclosure for participants across the cognitive spectrum. Disclosing clinicians complete a short questionnaire after each disclosure session, reporting on the visit length, the clinician's rating of participant and study partner understanding and emotional reactions, topics discussed, challenges, assessment of the visit overall, and any feedback about the process. Results Across the first 100 disclosures (48 cognitively normal, 35 Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), 17 dementia) in ADNI‐4, visits lasted an average of 29.4 minutes (SD 13.9, range 10‐90). Most cognitively impaired participants had a loved one present at the disclosure visit (dementia 94%, MCI 80%) but the majority of cognitively normal participants (73%) did not. Clinicians rated understanding of the result as adequate for all study partners and the vast majority (94%) of participants. Clinicians reported feeling “very confident” in their ability to assess readiness to receive result (70%), disclose (73%), and answer questions (77%). Clinicians rated all visits as “good” or better, with two‐thirds (65%) rated as “excellent.” Frequently discussed topics included meaning of result (99%), other risk factors (72%), and emotional impact of result (49%). Stigma and discrimination were rarely discussed, coming up in 12% and 3% of disclosure sessions, respectively. Challenges were infrequent (7%) and primarily included desire for additional information and challenges related to the participant's impairment. Clinicians provided the study team feedback about the disclosure process for 25% of disclosure visits. Comments included the desire for additional information or resources, positive feedback, and the importance of the study partner. Conclusions Clinicians disclosing amyloid PET results in ADNI‐4 report high confidence, adequate participant and study partner understanding, and few challenges. These data from clinicians, in combination with participant data, will inform future disclosure practices in both research and care.

Abstract The Centiloid scale is the standard for Amyloid (Aβ) PET quantification, widely used in research, clinical settings, and trial stratification. However, variability between tracers and scanners remains a challenge. This study introduces DeepSUVR, a deep learning method to correct Centiloid quantification, by penalising implausible longitudinal trajectories during training. The model was trained using data from 2,098 participants (6,762 Aβ PET scans) in AIBL/ADNI and validated using 15,806 Aβ PET scans from 10,543 participants across 10 external datasets. DeepSUVR increased correlation between tracers, and reduced variability in the Aβ-negatives. It showed the strongest association with cognition, highest AUC against visual reads and best longitudinal consistency between studies. DeepSUVR also increased the effect size for detecting lower Centiloid increase per year in the A4 study. DeepSUVR advances Aβ PET quantification, outperforming standard approaches, which is particularly important for consistent decision making and to detect subtle and early changes in clinical interventions.

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

Importance Depressive symptoms are associated with cognitive decline in older individuals. Uncertainty about underlying mechanisms hampers diagnostic and therapeutic efforts. This large-scale study aimed to elucidate the association between depressive symptoms and amyloid pathology. Objective To examine the association between depressive symptoms and amyloid pathology and its dependency on age, sex, education, and APOE genotype in older individuals without dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional analyses were performed using data from the Amyloid Biomarker Study data pooling initiative. Data from 49 research, population-based, and memory clinic studies were pooled and harmonized. The Amyloid Biomarker Study has been collecting data since 2012 and data collection is ongoing. At the time of analysis, 95 centers were included in the Amyloid Biomarker Study. The study included 9746 individuals with normal cognition (NC) and 3023 participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) aged between 34 and 100 years for whom data on amyloid biomarkers, presence of depressive symptoms, and age were available. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to February 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures Amyloid-β1-42 levels in cerebrospinal fluid or amyloid positron emission tomography scans were used to determine presence or absence of amyloid pathology. Presence of depressive symptoms was determined on the basis of validated depression rating scale scores, evidence of a current clinical diagnosis of depression, or self-reported depressive symptoms. Results In individuals with NC (mean [SD] age, 68.6 [8.9] years; 5664 [58.2%] female; 3002 [34.0%] APOE ε4 carriers; 937 [9.6%] had depressive symptoms; 2648 [27.2%] had amyloid pathology), the presence of depressive symptoms was not associated with amyloid pathology (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% CI, 0.90-1.40; P = .29). In individuals with MCI (mean [SD] age, 70.2 [8.7] years; 1481 [49.0%] female; 1046 [44.8%] APOE ε4 carriers; 824 [27.3%] had depressive symptoms; 1668 [55.8%] had amyloid pathology), the presence of depressive symptoms was associated with a lower likelihood of amyloid pathology (OR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.61-0.89; P = .001). When considering subgroup effects, in individuals with NC, the presence of depressive symptoms was associated with a higher frequency of amyloid pathology in APOE ε4 noncarriers (mean difference, 5.0%; 95% CI 1.0-9.0; P = .02) but not in APOE ε4 carriers. This was not the case in individuals with MCI. Conclusions and Relevance Depressive symptoms were not consistently associated with a higher frequency of amyloid pathology in participants with NC and were associated with a lower likelihood of amyloid pathology in participants with MCI. These findings were not influenced by age, sex, or education level. Mechanisms other than amyloid accumulation may commonly underlie depressive symptoms in late life.

AbstractBackgroundThe residual approach has found wide application in researching cognitive resilience, a phenomenon conceptually understood as cognitive performance being better‐than‐typical for an individual, despite apparent AD pathology. The standard residual approach extracts information about an individual’s resilience from the residuals of a linear model predicting cognition. This approach is subject to several limiting assumptions. Here, we explore the implications of these assumptions and propose an alternative predictive modeling approach which circumvents them.MethodsOur alternative approach relies on training a machine learning model on a sample of participants who follow a “typical” clinical progression (Fig. 1A). Residuals are then extracted for a heterogeneous dataset that potentially includes resilient participants by comparing observed cognitive outcomes to those predicted by the “typical” model (Fig. 1B). Additionally, our estimate can be refined by effectively estimating and removing model error from the extracted residual by leveraging a second predictive model (Fig. 1C). Using simulated data, we explore the assumptions made by the standard approach and the consequences of their violation. We then contrast this against our approach.ResultsOur simulations demonstrated that the standard residual approach only extracted accurate resilience estimates if the predictors used in the model explained cognition sufficiently well, while being unrelated to resilience itself. That is, as the predictors explain more of the resilience, the residuals became increasingly determined by model error (Fig. 2). We found that residuals achieved with our approach are more precise and provide individualized estimates that are unaffected by the aforementioned trade‐off (Fig. 3).ConclusionsOur approach holds several advantages over the standard approach: The definition of resilience can be freely adjusted and enforced via different definitions of “typical”, it allows for incorporating complex, non‐linear models without removing relevant information from the residual, the error component of the residual can be estimated through cross‐validation, and all predictors that potentially explain cognition can be included into the model without losing resilience information from the residual. Our approach can be used to measure any phenomenon that can be operationalized as a deviation from a typical outcome and, thus, is also applicable for researching resistance to pathology.

AbstractBackgroundMulticentric initiatives to study brain cognition in the elderly offers us a unique collection of brain imaging data accompanied by detailed neuroclinical and neuropsychological evaluations. U.S. POINTER and LatAm‐FINGERS, part of the World Wide FINGERS, are both large‐scale investigations of lifestyle interventions and its impact on cognitive function. These large‐scale detailed data may offer an unprecedented opportunity to compare diverse populations.MethodBaseline MRI of subjects from multiple US centers (POINTER‐US), distributed in 5 geographical regions, and from 9 latin‐american countries (LatAm‐FINGERS). The protocols vary from basic (3D T1, 3D FLAIR,T2* GRE, Cor T2 hippocampus, DWI) to advanced which also included ASL, rs‐FMRI and DTI. Demographic information and clinical, cognitive and neuropsychological assessment were also included.ResultMRI data was collected from 662 participants in the United States (about 65% of the total anticipated U.S. POINTER neuroimaging sample) and from 542 subjects from 9 countries in latin‐america (about 80% of the total anticipated LatAm‐FINGERS neuroimaging sample), with around 1200 participants scanned (table1).All participants have 3D T1, 3D FLAIR, T2* GRE images and either DWI or DTI images.Comparative demographics from the 2 datasets shows similar mean age, a predominance of females, and slight differences in education (table 2). This will allow us to compare multiethnic and multicultural volumetric and functional brain MRI information, as well as disease markers, associated with thorough neurological and clinical assessment. Reasons for not acquiring MRI were mainly due to claustrophobia or scanner unavailability.ConclusionThis is an exceptional opportunity to have comparative large‐scale databases, with anatomical and functional brain imaging from different populations, allowing us to study real world diverse brain data and better understand its relationships with demographics, health and risk characteristics, and cognition.

AbstractBackgroundA key focus of the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER) is recruitment of unimpaired older individuals at risk for cognitive decline with heterogeneous characteristics (under‐represented racial and ethnicity groups (URG), family history of cognitive decline, hypertension, geographic diversity), and a subset of individuals undergo PET and MRI.MethodTo examine effects of heterogeneity on relationships between risk factors, AD biomarkers (Aβ and entorhinal tau PET, hippocampal volume (HV)) and cognition (global, executive function, and memory) were examined from U.S. POINTER neuroimaging participants (N = 602, about 65% of the anticipated total sample) and a subset of Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative participants (N = 503). Neuroimaging data were processed and analyzed using harmonized methods across studies. Some cohort‐specific measurements were standardized using a within‐cohort reference group (Aβ‐negative individuals <70yrs and with global CDR = 0).ResultU.S. POINTER imaging participants are younger than those in ADNI (68.6+/‐5.0yrs vs 70.7+/‐4.4yrs), more likely to be female (65% vs 58%) and from URG (27% vs 15%), and had lower education (14.7+/‐3.3yrs vs 16.7+/‐2.3yrs) and higher Framingham Cardiovascular Risk scores (9.9+/‐8.3 vs 7.7+/‐5.3). The groups differed on several AD biomarkers and cognitive measures (Table). In regression models, AD biomarkers were stronger predictors of cognitive performance in ADNI compared to POINTER. Specifically, Aβ+ individuals with elevated tau had disproportionately poorer cognitive performance in ADNI, and this relationship remained consistent across cognitive measures (Figure). Conversely, demographic/risk variables were stronger predictors in POINTER. Demographic/risk predictors (age, sex, education, race, and FRS) together explained twice as much variance in global cognition in POINTER compared to ADNI (Adjusted R2 = 29% vs 14%). The addition of AD biomarkers to the model further increased the amount of variance in global cognition explained from 14% to 34% in ADNI, but addition of AD biomarkers did not increase variance explained in the POINTER model.ConclusionHeterogeneity among study participants appears to influence baseline biomarker‐cognition relationships such that AD biomarkers explain more variability in cognitive performance in ADNI than POINTER. These findings further suggest that cohort characteristics may affect the potential influence of amyloid‐ and tau‐modifying treatments on cognition.

AbstractBackgroundThe Standardized Centralized Alzheimer’s & related dementias Neuroimaging (SCAN) project harmonizes processing of prospectively acquired PET and MRI scans from Alzheimer’s disease research centers (ADRCs) across the USA. SCAN data will be integrated with other ADRC data streams within the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC), including the Uniform Data Set which includes rich longitudinal demographic, cognitive, and neuropathological data, resulting in a large, potentially representative cohort. The project has sought to accommodate site‐to‐site variation in image acquisition while permitting harmonization of imaging data, necessitating new analytic approaches for different PET tracers and PET scans without MRIs.MethodPET scans underwent preprocessing for quality control and smoothing to a uniform resolution. MRI‐free processing pipelines and positivity thresholds were developed for each beta‐amyloid (Aβ)‐PET tracer: [11C]PiB, [18F]florbetaben (FBB), [18F]florbetapir (FBP) and [18F]flutafuranol (NAV). A generic Aβ‐PET template was used for spatial normalization and cortical summary SUVRs were calculated in template space. Aβ‐positivity thresholds were determined by examining both MRI‐dependent thresholds transformed into MRI‐free units and a young control mean+2SD. Centiloid (CL) conversions were completed for each Aβ‐PET tracer. Tau‐PET tracers ([18F]flortaucipir (FTP) and [18F]MK‐6240) required tracer‐specific warping templates for best performance relative to gold‐standard MRI‐dependent processing. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from NACC.Result15 ADRCs have contributed data to SCAN as of January 2023. 477 participants had preprocessed, SCAN‐compliant (https://scan.naccdata.org/) Aβ‐PET scans and NACC data; 219 of these participants (46%) also had tau‐PET scans (Table 1). This cohort included 18% of individuals from underrepresented groups. Clinical diagnostic groups ranged from cognitively unimpaired to MCI and dementia (74% of whom had AD dementia). Using pooled Aβ‐PET data across 4 tracers in CLs, there were expected differences in Aβ burden by diagnosis group (Fig. 1) and positive associations with tau (Fig. 2).ConclusionSCAN has successfully harmonized PET data from more than a dozen US ADRCs yielding a large, clinically heterogeneous cohort of deeply phenotyped research participants. SCAN data will be compatible with ADNI data allowing for further pooling of data and greater statistical power to drive critical questions in AD and related dementias research.

AbstractBackgroundA key focus of the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER) is recruitment of unimpaired older individuals at risk for cognitive decline with heterogeneous characteristics (under‐represented racial and ethnicity groups (URG), family history of cognitive decline, hypertension, geographic diversity), and a subset of individuals undergo PET and MRI.MethodTo examine effects of heterogeneity on relationships between risk factors, AD biomarkers (Aß and entorhinal tau PET, hippocampal volume (HV)) and cognition (global, executive function, and memory) were examined from U.S. POINTER neuroimaging participants (N = 602, about 65% of the anticipated total sample) and a subset of Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative participants (N = 503). Neuroimaging data were processed and analyzed using harmonized methods across studies. Some cohort‐specific measurements were standardized using a within‐cohort reference group (Aß‐negative individuals <70yrs and with global CDR = 0).ResultU.S. POINTER imaging participants are younger than those in ADNI (68.6+/‐5.0yrs vs 70.7+/‐4.4yrs), more likely to be female (65% vs 58%) and from URG (27% vs 15%), and had lower education (14.7+/‐3.3yrs vs 16.7+/‐2.3yrs) and higher Framingham Cardiovascular Risk scores (9.9+/‐8.3 vs 7.7+/‐5.3). The groups differed on several AD biomarkers and cognitive measures (Table). In regression models, AD biomarkers were stronger predictors of cognitive performance in ADNI compared to POINTER. Specifically, Aß+ individuals with elevated tau had disproportionately poorer cognitive performance in ADNI, and this relationship remained consistent across cognitive measures (Figure). Conversely, demographic/risk variables were stronger predictors in POINTER. Demographic/risk predictors (age, sex, education, race, and FRS) together explained twice as much variance in global cognition in POINTER compared to ADNI (Adjusted R2 = 29% vs 14%). The addition of AD biomarkers to the model further increased the amount of variance in global cognition explained from 14% to 34% in ADNI, but addition of AD biomarkers did not increase variance explained in the POINTER model.ConclusionHeterogeneity among study participants appears to influence baseline biomarker‐cognition relationships such that AD biomarkers explain more variability in cognitive performance in ADNI than POINTER. These findings further suggest that cohort characteristics may affect the potential influence of amyloid‐ and tau‐modifying treatments on cognition.

AbstractBackgroundThe Standardized Centralized Alzheimer’s & related dementias Neuroimaging (SCAN) project harmonizes processing of prospectively acquired PET and MRI scans from Alzheimer’s disease research centers (ADRCs) across the USA. SCAN data will be integrated with other ADRC data streams within the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC), including the Uniform Data Set which includes rich longitudinal demographic, cognitive, and neuropathological data, resulting in a large, potentially representative cohort. The project has sought to accommodate site‐to‐site variation in image acquisition while permitting harmonization of imaging data, necessitating new analytic approaches for different PET tracers and PET scans without MRIs.MethodPET scans underwent preprocessing for quality control and smoothing to a uniform resolution. MRI‐free processing pipelines and positivity thresholds were developed for each beta‐amyloid (Aß)‐PET tracer: [11C]PiB, [18F]florbetaben (FBB), [18F]florbetapir (FBP) and [18F]flutafuranol (NAV). A generic Aß‐PET template was used for spatial normalization and cortical summary SUVRs were calculated in template space. Aß‐positivity thresholds were determined by examining both MRI‐dependent thresholds transformed into MRI‐free units and a young control mean+2SD. Centiloid (CL) conversions were completed for each Aß‐PET tracer. Tau‐PET tracers ([18F]flortaucipir (FTP) and [18F]MK‐6240) required tracer‐specific warping templates for best performance relative to gold‐standard MRI‐dependent processing. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from NACC.Result15 ADRCs have contributed data to SCAN as of January 2023. 477 participants had preprocessed, SCAN‐compliant (https://scan.naccdata.org/) Aß‐PET scans and NACC data; 219 of these participants (46%) also had tau‐PET scans (Table 1). This cohort included 18% of individuals from underrepresented groups. Clinical diagnostic groups ranged from cognitively unimpaired to MCI and dementia (74% of whom had AD dementia). Using pooled Aß‐PET data across 4 tracers in CLs, there were expected differences in Aß burden by diagnosis group (Fig. 1) and positive associations with tau (Fig. 2).ConclusionSCAN has successfully harmonized PET data from more than a dozen US ADRCs yielding a large, clinically heterogeneous cohort of deeply phenotyped research participants. SCAN data will be compatible with ADNI data allowing for further pooling of data and greater statistical power to drive critical questions in AD and related dementias research.