Rabinovici, Gil D.

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 [ 18 F]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 [ 18 F]flortaucipir (ADNI), [ 18 F]MK‐6240 (CPAS), and [ 18 F]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 ([ 18 F]flortaucipir) and AIBL ([ 18 F]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 [ 18 F]flortaucipir and [ 18 F]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 ([ 18 F]PI‐2620) are underway.

Abstract Background The link between regional tau load and clinical manifestation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) highlights the importance of characterizing spatial tau distribution. In typical (memory‐predominant) AD, the spatial progression of tau pathology mirrors the functional connections from temporal lobe epicenters. However, atypical (non‐amnestic‐predominant) AD variants with heterogeneous tau patterns provide a key opportunity to assess the universality of connectivity as a scaffold for tau progression. Method We included tau‐PET data from 320 subjects with atypical AD, characterized by highly heterogeneous tau patterns ( n = 139 posterior cortical atrophy/PCA‐AD; n = 103 logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia/lvPPA‐AD; n = 35 behavioural variant AD/bvAD; n = 43 corticobasal syndrome/CBS‐AD) from 14 sites, with a subset of patients ( n = 78) having longitudinal tau‐PET data. As an independent sample, we further included regional post‐mortem tau stainings from 93 atypical AD patients from two sites ( n = 19 PCA‐AD, n = 32 lvPPA‐AD, n = 23 bvAD, n = 19 CBS‐AD). Gaussian mixture modeling was used to harmonize different tau‐PET tracers by transforming tau‐PET standardized uptake value ratios to tau positivity probabilities (a uniform scale ranging from 0% to 100%). Using linear regression, we assessed whether 1) brain regions with stronger functional connectivity showed greater covariance in cross‐sectional and longitudinal tau‐PET and post‐mortem tau pathology, and 2) functional connectivity of tau‐PET epicenters and tau‐PET accumulation epicenters was associated with cross‐sectional and longitudinal tau patterns. Result Tau‐PET epicenters—defined as the 5% brain regions with the highest tau load—aligned with clinical variants, e.g. a posterior pattern in PCA‐AD (“visual AD”) and left‐hemispheric temporal predominance in lvPPA‐AD (“language AD”) (Figure 1). More strongly functionally connected regions showed correlated concurrent tau‐PET levels, which was confirmed with post‐mortem data (Figure 2). Moreover, the connectivity profile of tau‐PET epicenters and accumulation epicenters corresponded to tau‐PET progression patterns (Figure 3). Conclusion Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that tau propagation occurs along functional connections originating from local epicenters, across all AD clinical variants. Since tau proteinopathy is a key driver of neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, this finding may advance personalized medicine and participant‐specific endpoints in clinical trials.

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 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.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Brief digital cognitive measures may be a valuable and scalable alternative to traditional tests for improving early detection and disease monitoring in patients with early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD). METHODS We examined the convergent, diagnostic, and neuroanatomical validity of Tablet‐based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT) tests in the multisite Longitudinal Early‐Onset Alzheimer's Disease Study. Four hundred seventy‐five participants from 16 sites (83 cognitively unimpaired participants, 146 individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and 246 with mild dementia) underwent TabCAT testing, including two executive/attentional tasks (Match and Flanker) and two visuospatial tasks (Line Length and Line Orientation). RESULTS TabCAT tests showed good convergent validity with traditional pen‐and‐paper tests. Match was the most accurate TabCAT test in differentiating among clinical groups (controls vs. MCI vs. dementia) and predicting amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) positivity in clinically impaired participants. TabCAT tests were associated with regional tau PET patterns. DISCUSSION TabCAT digital measures have promise for frontline identification of patients with EOAD. Highlights Four hundred seventy‐five participants from 16 US sites underwent tablet‐based cognitive assessment. Digital tests assessed executive function and visuospatial abilities. Digital tests correlated with traditional pen‐and‐paper cognitive tests. Match (test of executive function) differentiated clinical groups. Digital tests were associated with amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) status and regional tau PET patterns.

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).

Abstract Objective: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Executive Abilities: Measures and Instruments for Neurobehavioral Evaluation and Research (EXAMINER) is a validated laptop-based battery of executive functioning tests. A modified tablet version of the EXAMINER was developed on the UCSF Tablet-based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT-EXAMINER). Here we describe the battery and investigate the reliability and validity of a composite score. Methods: A diagnostically heterogeneous sample of 2135 individuals (mean age = 65.58, SD = 16.07), including controls and participants with a variety of neurodegenerative syndromes, completed the TabCAT-EXAMINER. A composite score was developed using confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Validity was evaluated via linear regressions that tested associations with neuropsychological tests, demographics, clinical diagnosis, and disease severity. Replicability of cross-sectional results was tested in a separate sample of participants ( n = 342) recruited from a frontotemporal dementia study. As this separate sample also collected longitudinal TabCAT-EXAMINER measures, we additionally assessed test-retest reliability and associations between baseline disease severity and changes in TabCAT-EXAMINER scores. Results: The TabCAT-EXAMINER score was normally distributed, demonstrated high test-retest reliability, and was associated in the expected directions with independent tests of executive functioning, demographics, disease severity, and diagnosis. Greater baseline disease severity was associated with more rapid longitudinal TabCAT-EXAMINER decline. Conclusions: The TabCAT-EXAMINER is a tablet-based executive functioning battery developed for observational research and clinical trials. Performance can be summarized as a single composite score, and results of this study support its reliability and validity in cognitive aging and neurodegenerative disease cohorts.

Abstract As Alzheimer's disease (AD) research advances, tau has emerged as both a critical biomarker and a promising therapeutic target, central to understanding disease mechanisms, tracking progression, and guiding treatment development. The Fall 2024 Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened experts from academia, industry, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to explore current progress and future directions in tau‐centered diagnostics and therapeutics. Discussions addressed the integration of tau biomarkers into the 2024 Revised Diagnostic Criteria for AD, updates to amyloid and tau positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, and modeling of biomarker trajectories. Presenters highlighted tau‐targeting therapeutics including antisense oligonucleotides, monoclonal antibodies, and small molecules, alongside innovations in drug delivery. The interplay between anti‐amyloid and anti‐tau therapies and strategic design of combination trials were key themes. Regulatory insights facilitated discussions on drug approval pathways. The meeting highlighted the rapid evolution of tau research and emphasized opportunities to improve diagnostics, trial design, and treatment strategies in AD. Highlights The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) convened leaders from industry, academia, and government, to explore current progress and future directions in tau‐centered diagnostics and therapeutics. Tau has emerged as both a critical biomarker and a promising therapeutic target, central to understanding disease mechanisms, tracking progression, and guiding treatment development. Discussions addressed the integration of tau biomarkers into the 2024 revised diagnostic criteria for AD, updates to amyloid and tau PET imaging, modeling of biomarker trajectories, tau‐targeting therapeutics, and interplay between anti‐amyloid and anti‐tau therapies and strategic design of combination trials.

Abstract INTRODUCTION In multicenter Alzheimer's disease studies, amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) visual reads are typically performed centrally by a few experts. Incorporating a broader reader network enhances scalability and generalizability. METHODS Ten neuroimaging experts from eight Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) visually read 180 amyloid PET scans (30 scans and 15 duplicate scans for each of four tracers, imaged across a wide variety of scanners), using preferred reading software without anatomical imaging or quantitation. Scans were classified as elevated or non‐elevated per tracer‐specific criteria. Inter‐ and intra‐rater agreement was assessed. RESULTS Inter‐rater agreement was substantial (Fleiss’ κ = 0.78), with full consensus on 69% of scans. Inter‐rater reliability was substantial to perfect across tracers (Fleiss’ κ = 0.70–0.87). Intra‐rater agreement was substantial to perfect (Cohen's κ = 0.79‐1). Scans with intermediate (10–40 Centiloid) quantitation had lower reader agreement. DISCUSSION A multicenter expert network achieved substantial agreement classifying amyloid PET scans. These scans provide a standard for reader training and reliability assurance in future studies. Highlights Calibration methods ensure reliable amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) visual reads across multiple raters. Substantial agreement is possible across readers using their preferred tools. Agreement is also substantial regardless of the amyloid PET tracer used. Scans with intermediate (10–40 Centiloid) quantitation have lower reader agreement. The calibration set will become a training tool for amyloid PET visual read studies.