Citations

AbstractBackgroundResearch subjects can potentially be re‐identified from de‐identified MRI, CT, and PET brain scans with up to 98% accuracy using Microsoft Azure’s cloud‐based commercial facial recognition software. This showed the need to “de‐face” publicly shared research brain scans. Subsequently, Microsoft has begun restricting its face recognition services, intending to prevent misuse. This study tests a variety of popular open‐source computer vision and facial recognition software packages to measure the re‐identification risk with only unrestricted free software.MethodThis study used brain MRI from Siemens 3T scanners and face photographs from 182 participants (ages 30‐90+) in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. Each participant had photos taken with an iPad, which were cropped loosely around the head and converted to black and white. A total of 81 renders (2D reconstruction images; Figure 1) were made from each 3D T2‐FLAIR MRI, simulating various camera and lighting positions. These face renders approximate black and white photos, allowing use with software packages developed for matching faces/features between photographs. Open‐source Python packages (OpenCV, DeepFace, face_recognition, scikit‐learn) and their included pre‐trained models (designed for photographs) were used to match participant photographs to the labelled library of MRI‐based face renders. A correct match was recorded when the top‐scoring render or set of renders automatically chosen by the algorithm was from the MRI of the correct participant.ResultFeature matching with ORB and SWIFT (both from OpenCV) produced no correct matches, despite a prior publication reporting moderate success. The best match rates (Figure 2) were 58‐59% accuracy using face_recognition or DeepFace packages with support vector machines (SVMs). Without SVMs, these packages performed modestly worse (51%‐55%).ConclusionWhile the highest match rates obtained by widely available open‐source packages (roughly 60%) are much lower than those of a limited‐access commercial product (Microsoft Azure, with 98%), they show that actors with only access to no‐cost readily available software could still re‐identify a research subject from a brain scan most of the time. This further highlights the need for image refacing software, such as mri_reface, to protect the privacy and identifies of research volunteers.

AbstractBackgroundSeveral programs are available for automatically “de‐facing” brain images. These are designed to prevent the potential use of face imagery to re‐identify research participants. Previous works have compared available software and mri_reface is frequently among the top methods. The “Minimally Invasive DeFacing of MRI images” (MiDeFace) program was more recently added to FreeSurfer, but minimal validation of MiDeFace has been published.MethodWe ran mri_reface 0.3.3 and MiDeFace 7.3.2 on two datasets: A) 207 participants with face photographs and 3D T1‐weighted and 3D T2‐weighted‐FLAIR MRI from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (all unimpaired, Siemens); and B) 300 participants from ADNI3 with 3D T1‐weighted MRI (50 unimpaired + 50 with clinical AD, from each of 3 vendors). For dataset A, we tested the rate at which Microsoft Azure face recognition matched each participant’s photographs with the correct MRI, comparing unmodified images, those from mri_reface, and those from MiDeFace. For dataset B, we compared measured regional brain volume and cortical thickness from original vs. de‐faced images with SPM12, FreeSurfer 7.4.1, and the FSL‐UK Biobank pipeline. For both datasets, images were visually rated to assess removal of the face and retention of brain tissue.ResultAutomated face recognition match rates were lower with mri_reface (17/207 8.2%) than with MiDeFace (24/207 11.6%), indicating stronger identity protection with mri_reface, but both were greatly reduced vs. unmodified images (203/207 98.1%). Example images with both programs are shown in Figure 1. From visual ratings (Table 1), rates of complete success (modification of the entire face while retaining the entire brain) were much higher with mri_reface, but the great majority of failures from MiDeFace were subtle and occurred in relatively less recognizable face regions. The effects of both programs on downstream imaging measurements (Figure 2) were small and very comparable, but MiDeFace was favored mildly for SPM12 and for FSL, while mri_reface was more favored for FreeSurfer.ConclusionAltogether, mri_reface more reliably removed the complete face, leading to smaller rates of potential re‐identification (8.2% vs 11.6%). Effects on downstream image measurements were small and comparable with both methods.

AbstractBackgroundThe Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) is a longitudinal, population‐based study of residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, USA. MCSA is releasing de‐identified clinical and imaging data on GAAIN.org to benefit the research community.MethodWe included longitudinal clinical data from all participants of the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging 30‐90 years of age (average 70.0y) through the first 15 years of the study. Clinical data includes age, sex, self‐reported race/ethnicity, APoE4 allele status, cognitive impairment status (normal, MCI, dementia, or other), height, weight, blood pressure, multi‐domain neuropsychological scores, neuroimaging summary measurements, medications, cardiovascular risk factors, social activity, sleep, mood/anxiety, functional measures, and more. For our initial release of imaging data, we selected the first imaging timepoint acquired on 3T GE MRI scanners and amyloid (PiB) PET during the same visit, from all available imaging participants 50‐90 years of age (average 70.7y). Currently, we included 3D T1‐weighted (MPRAGE) MRI (1x1x1.2mm3), T2‐weighted FLAIR MRI (0.85x0.85x3.6mm3), diffusion MRI (2.7mm resolution with 41 directions at b=1000 and 5 b=0), and numeric cortical global SUVR and Centiloid values from PiB PET scans at 40‐60 minutes post‐injection. All images are released in DICOM format and thoroughly de‐identified using CTP while ensuring preservation of necessary fields for analyses. T1‐weighted and T2‐FLAIR MRI were also de‐faced (identifiable face imagery was removed and replaced with an average) using mri_reface version 0.3.3 to further protect participants’ privacy, and all de‐faced images were visually inspected by a trained data scientist for quality assurance.ResultThe first phase of our public data release includes clinical data from 5925 unique participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), each ranging from 1‐12 visits at roughly 15‐month intervals, and three MRI sequences (T1‐w, T2‐w‐FLAIR, and diffusion) from 1802 unique participants. Demographic summaries are given in Table 1.ConclusionThis large, richly characterized, de‐identified clinical and imaging dataset is available to the research community at https://www.gaaindata.org/partner/MCSA, and it is suitable for a wide range of research uses. Additional data will be released over time, including de‐faced amyloid PET images.

AbstractBackgroundApproximately 10% of patients with acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection present with persistent symptoms recognized as the long‐COVID. Neurological and cognitive symptoms are prevalent in long‐COVID, requiring a deeper understanding of the biological basis of this condition for potential therapeutic interventions. Cerebrovascular complications are observed during acute infection, underscoring the importance of understanding cerebrovascular outcomes. Our objective was to investigate white matter hyperintensities (WMH) as a potential indicator of microvascular disease associated with long‐COVID in the brainMethodParticipants with long‐COVID (n = 71; hospitalized,n = 9,non‐hospitalized,n = 62 during the acute infection) and controls(n = 50) who did not have a reported infection were recruited from the community at five US sites that participated in the COVID‐Brain‐Advanced‐Imaging‐Network (COVID‐BRAIN) project. To be included, participants with long‐COVID had to experience neurological or cognitive sequelae within 6 months after a confirmed infection and continued to show at least one neurological symptom. Clinical evaluation and MRI were performed an average of 20±10 months after the acute infection. WMH volumes were measured from the 3D T2‐weighted FLAIR MRIs using a semi‐automated approach for the WMH segmentation. A linear regression model predicting log transformed WMH volume was used to investigate the association of age, groups (hospitalized long‐COVID, non‐hospitalized long‐COVID, controls), and the interaction of these two predictors along with an adjustment for total intracranial volume. Additionally, predicted regression lines have been plotted on the untransformed WMH scale.ResultWe observed a greater age‐dependent increase in WMH volumes in the hospitalized patients with long‐COVID compared to the control group (group*age interaction, p = 0.005). We did not observe this difference in slopes in the non‐hospitalized patients with long‐COVID compared to the controls. Figure shows the slopes of WMH volume as a percentage of the total intracranial volume by age in the three groups.ConclusionOur preliminary observation in this ongoing long‐Covid study suggests that hospitalization during acute COVID is associated with the age‐dependent increase in microvascular injury in the white matter. Older adults with acute infection that require hospitalization are more susceptible to cerebrovascular adverse outcomes than controls or those who do not require hospitalization. Impact of such microvascular changes on cognitive outcomes and persistence of post‐COVID symptoms is yet to be studied.

AbstractBackgroundWhite matter (WM) damage is seen with neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular pathologies and contributes to cognitive dysfunction. We hypothesized that there are multiple disease progression patterns in WM microstructural changes related to aging and dementia, and these can be identified using SuStaIn (data‐driven clustering algorithm for disease subtype and stage discovery) on multishell diffusion MRI (NODDI) data. NODDI provides information on cellular tissue architecture – neurite density index (NDI) measures packing density of axons and dendrites, and free water fraction (FWF) measures unrestricted water, e.g., interstitial and cerebrospinal fluid.MethodWe identified 1136 participants (mean age=70 years, 51% male, 40% Aß‐positive, 19% MCI/AD dementia) from the Mayo ADRC and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. We analyzed NDI and FWF in 55 WM regions. We selected a subset of WM features that monotonically changed with clinical disease progression and then applied the Z‐score SuStaIn algorithm.ResultNDI in seven regions and FWF in six regions survived selection criteria (Figure 1). Noteworthy, the NDI regions were predominantly located in the temporal lobe, while FWF regions were primarily distributed in the frontal and subcortical regions. The SuStaIn algorithm discovered two stable clusters: the NDI‐First (Temporal) and FWF‐First (Frontal) groups (Figure 2). For the NDI‐First group, temporal lobe NDI changed early followed by frontal FWF. The FWF‐First group had the reverse order. There was clear phase separation based on which measure changed first. Stages of the NDI‐First group correlated better with meta‐ROI Tau‐PET SUVR and with MMSE than the FWF‐First group (p<0.01), suggesting that NDI‐First may be indicative of a primarily AD pathway.ConclusionGiven NDI changes are likely degenerative and FWF are suggested to be other processes such as neurodegeneration or inflammatory, the observed changes in the temporal and frontal regions may be due to distinct etiologies, i.e., neurodegenerative in the temporal lobes vs. vascular dysfunction often observed in the frontal lobes. The SuStaIn algorithm showed promise in discovering disease subtypes of WM microstructural changes. Further work is needed to understand the mechanistic basis of these observed changes and integrate WM changes for differential etiology identification and disease staging.

AbstractBackgroundThere is a strong link between tau and progression of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), necessitating an understanding of tau spreading mechanisms. Prior research, predominantly in typical AD, suggested that tau propagates from epicenters (regions with earliest tau) to functionally connected regions. However, given the constrained spatial heterogeneity of tau in typical AD, validating this connectivity‐based tau spreading model in AD variants with distinct tau deposition patterns is crucial.MethodWe included 269 amyloid‐ß‐positive (PET/CSF) individuals with clinically diagnosed atypical AD (113 posterior cortical atrophy, PCA‐AD; 83 logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, lvPPA‐AD; 33 behavioural variant AD, bvAD; 40 corticobasal syndrome, CBS‐AD) and 68 with typical AD from 12 international cohorts, who underwent tau‐PET (54% [18F]AV1451/[18F]flortaucipir/Tauvid, 27% [18F]MK6240, 19% [18F]PI2620). Using Gaussian mixture modeling including amyloid‐ß‐negative controls, cross‐sectional tau‐PET standardized uptake value ratios within Schaefer‐200 atlas regions were transformed to tau positivity probabilities. Tau epicenters were defined as the 5% regions with highest tau positivity probabilities. For each variant, the association between functional connectivity‐based distance (using the 30% strongest positive region‐to‐region connections of a group‐average connectivity matrix from ADNI elderly controls) and tau‐PET covariance (group‐average correlation per region pair) was assessed through linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, site, and Euclidean distance. Regions were categorized based on functional proximity to the epicenter (quartiles 1‐4) and tau positivity probabilities were assessed accordingly.ResultTau positivity probabilities matched clinical variants, with a posterior pattern in PCA‐AD, left‐hemispheric dominant pattern in lvPPA‐AD, widespread pattern in bvAD, sensorimotor cortex involvement in CBS‐AD, and temporo‐parietal predominance in typical AD (Fig.1). In line with this, tau epicenters were highly heterogeneous across variants (Fig.1). In all variants, greater tau‐PET covariance was associated with shorter functional connectivity‐based distance (Fig.2). We observed that regions in closer functional proximity to the epicenter exhibited higher tau positivity probabilities than regions functionally further away (p<0.05, Fig.3).ConclusionThis multi‐center study shows that the brain’s functional architecture serves as a universal predictor of tau spreading in AD. Since tau is a key driver of neurodegeneration and cognitive decline in AD, this finding holds potential for personalized medicine and defining participant‐specific endpoints in clinical trials.

AbstractBackgroundRecent advances in automatic face recognition have increased the risk that de‐identified research imaging data could be re‐identified from face imagery in brain scans.MethodAn ADNI committee of independent imaging experts evaluated 11 published techniques for face‐deidentification (“de‐facing”) and selected four algorithms (FSL‐UK Biobank, HCP/XNAT, mri_reface, and BIC) for formal testing using 183 longitudinal scans of 61 racially and ethnically diverse ADNI participants, evaluated by their facial feature removal on 3D rendered surfaces (confirming sufficient privacy protection) and by comparing measurements from ADNI routine image analyses on unmodified vs. de‐faced images (confirming negligible side effects on analyses).ResultEffects of the de‐facing methods on FreeSurfer at UCSF (Figure 1‐top), ASHS at University of Pennsylvania (Figure 1 bottom‐left), and longitudinal atrophy at Mayo Clinic (Figure 1 bottom‐right) were comparable with each other and sufficiently small vs. unmodified scans to recommend de‐facing in ADNI‐4. The FSL and mri_reface methods were more thorough in removing facial features, partly because these also removed ears (Figure 2‐top). mri_reface was recommended for ADNI‐4 primarily because fewer (zero) images had modified brain (Figure 2‐bottom), and ADNI leadership approved de‐facing with mri_reface. ADNI performed a second validation of its latest version on another diverse sample of 100 ADNI‐3 participants. These analyses included: boundary shift interval at University College London, where average differences in measurements were all <0.05%; cortical white matter hyperintensities at UC Davis, where they found “minimum impact” (R>0.97); and others.ConclusionADNI‐4 de‐faces all indicated image types (Table 1) before subsequent pre‐processing, analyses, and public release. Sites upload images to the central repository (LONI), where they are queued to the MRI Core at Mayo Clinic for de‐facing. Image types requiring de‐facing are de‐faced using mri_reface. Trained analysts inspect de‐faced images to confirm complete removal of the face and complete non‐modification of the brain, and any flagged images are re‐processed manually until issues are resolved. De‐faced images are converted back to DICOM and re‐uploaded for further distribution. Image types not requiring de‐facing are indicated to proceed directly to subsequent steps. In summary, ADNI‐4 has adopted mri_reface because it successfully de‐faces without substantially affecting brain measurements.

AbstractWith the approval of disease modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease, the practice of dementia care and treatment has changed. Amyloid related imaging changes, are the most common adverse effects of these types of drugs. There is limited guidance across multiple specialties on how to recognize and manage these changes in a dementia patient population. The use of these types of drugs for treatment, impacts multiple stakeholders regarding how they manage and treat dementia patients. ns. Thus the use of these types of drugs, involve multiple stakeholders with different perspectives on how they perceive their role in care and overall treatment plans. In order to optimize collaborative care in the ED setting, recognizing how ARIA may present in a patient who seeks care in the ED, and what types of treatment options are available are needed.

AbstractAging adults worldwide are presenting to the emergency department with acute and subacute illness and injury confounded by often unrecognized cognitive impairment, including dementia and delirium. Conveying medical information and weighing various diagnostic and therapeutic approaches during times of emergency is difficult for all aging adults. In adult ED populations without dementia, communication is imperfect with incomplete recollection of test results, presumptive diagnoses, prescriptions, and follow‐up recommendations. Communication strategies striving to improve ED nurse/physician‐to‐patient information exchange such as TeachBack are ineffective in non‐dementia populations and untested in subsets with dementia or their care partners. Increasingly, healthcare disparities associated with dementia detection and interventions are acknowledged. For example, limited health literacy is one source of disparity, interacts with the severity of dementia, is one communication barrier, and yet is not routinely evaluated in ED settings. Shared Decision Making is an evolving approach to engage patients and families in complex medical conversations, but emergency medicine shared decision making research often excludes individuals with dementia by design. This session will explore theoretical opportunities to improve medical decision‐making during times of emergency for persons living with dementia and their care partners.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The Alzheimer's Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging convened a multidisciplinary workgroup to update appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and to develop AUC for tau PET. METHODS The workgroup identified key research questions that guided a systematic literature review on clinical amyloid/tau PET. Building on this review, the workgroup developed 17 clinical scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be considered. A modified Delphi approach was used to rate each scenario by consensus as “rarely appropriate,” “uncertain,” or “appropriate.” Ratings were performed separately for amyloid and tau PET as stand‐alone modalities. RESULTS For amyloid PET, seven scenarios were rated as appropriate, two as uncertain, and eight as rarely appropriate. For tau PET, five scenarios were rated as appropriate, six as uncertain, and six as rarely appropriate. DISCUSSION AUC for amyloid and tau PET provide expert recommendations for clinical use of these technologies in the evolving landscape of diagnostics and therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease. Highlights A multidisciplinary workgroup convened by the Alzheimer's Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging updated the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and to develop AUC for tau PET. The goal of these updated AUC is to assist clinicians in identifying clinical scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be useful for guiding the diagnosis and management of patients who have, or are at risk for, cognitive decline These updated AUC are intended for dementia specialists who spend a significant proportion of their clinical effort caring for patients with cognitive complaints, as well as serve as a general reference for a broader audience interested in implementation of amyloid and tau PET in clinical practice.