Bouteloup, Vincent

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.

Background: Cognitive change is an important factor in understanding dementia. Estimating effects of exposures on cognitive change requires choosing an analytical timescale, typically time on study or current age. There is limited consensus regarding timescale choice in epidemiologic cognitive aging research. Methods: Using a coordinated analytic approach in 10 cohorts of older adults, we evaluated whether estimated effects of two exposures on memory change differed depending on timescale (time on study or current age). We modeled effects of apolipoprotein-E (APOE) ε4 genotype (a time-invariant exposure) and diabetes (a potentially time-varying/acquired exposure evaluated at baseline) using mixed-effects models with linear and nonlinear time specifications for both timescales. Results: Among APOE ε4 carriers, model-estimated memory scores at baseline (time on study timescale) or at each cohort’s median baseline age (current age timescale) were lower, and the average rate of decline was faster than among APOE ε4 noncarriers. Model-estimated memory scores at baseline or at median baseline age were generally similar across baseline diabetes status, with variability across cohorts in the diabetes-memory change association. In some cohorts, trends in diabetes-memory change associations differed in direction across timescales. Conclusions: Timescale was largely inconsequential for estimated effects of APOE genotype, but yielded differences in estimated diabetes effects, raising questions about the appropriate scale. The current age scale may be problematic because diabetes was measured heterogeneously in age across individuals, a common issue in aging cohorts. Our work demonstrates approaches to evaluate alternative timescales, including in multicohort analyses, and highlights potential implications for estimated exposure effects on cognitive change.