Citations

Clear

309 citation(s) found for "Schwarz, Christopher G".

Prediction of neuropathology using the FDG‐PET based patient similarity network
Zhang, Gemeng , Barnard, Leland, Botha, Hugo, Gogineni, Venkatsampath, Graff‐Radford, Jonathan, Huls, Sean J. , Stricker, John L. , Fan, Winnie Z. , Wiste, Heather J. , Machulda, Mary M., Murray, Melissa E., Reichard, R. Ross, Gunter, Jeffrey L. , Schwarz, Christopher G, Kantarci, Kejal, Whitwell, Jennifer L., Josephs, K., Knopman, David S., Boeve, Brad F, Petersen, Ronald, Jack, Clifford R., Lowe, Val J. , Jones, David T., Barnard, Leland R , Botha, Hugo , Corriveau‐Lecavalier, Nick , Graff‐Radford, Jonathan , Burkett, Brian J. , Johnson, Derek R. , Khurana, Aditya , Min, Hoon-Ki Paul , Senjem, Matthew L. , Machulda, Mary M. , Murray, Melissa E. , Dickson, Dennis W. , Nguyen, Aivi T. , Reichard, R. Ross , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Kantarci, Kejal , Whitwell, Jennifer L. , Knopman, David S. , Petersen, Ronald, Jack, Clifford R. , Jones, David T.

Mayo Clinic

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 24, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S1 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70855_103746 Get It

Abstract Background Neuropathologic evaluation is essential for diagnosing and treating dementia, but definitive diagnoses is only available after post‐mortem brain autopsy. Positron emission tomography (PET) offers a potential in vivo proxy for predicting neuropathology. This study proposes a semi‐supervised learning (SSL) model using a single FDG‐PET image to predict underlying neuropathology. Method The SSL model leverages a self‐organized graph structure based on a patient similarity network (PSN) created from 1,495 FDG‐PET images across the aging and neurodegenerative spectrum. Each patient is represented by a node, with edges indicating image similarity derived from principal component analysis features and cosine similarity weights. The PSN structure connects 20 nearest neighbors. Neuropathologic labels were available for 204 autopsied patients. The Poisson Learning Method was employed to propagate labels from these annotated nodes to unlabeled nodes, guided by the PSN structure. FDG‐PET images were collected from clinical and research participants at the Mayo Clinic and processed using an MRI‐free pipeline. Neuropathologic labels were assigned based on widely accepted diagnostic criteria. Leave‐one‐out cross‐validation (LOOCV) was used to assess model performance. Results The confusion matrix demonstrated high accuracy in predicting Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal lobar degeneration with tau inclusions, and Lewy body disease pathology. A Sankey diagram and label distribution analysis revealed strong correlations between clinical and predicted neuropathologic labels. Conclusion This study highlights the potential of a graph‐based SSL pipeline to predict neuropathological changes using FDG‐PET imaging data, despite limited pathology labels. The findings underscore the value of SSL in bridging the gap between abundant neuroimaging data and scarce neuropathologic labels, contributing to improved dementia diagnosis and understanding.
Harmonization Remains Unresolved: The Case of White Matter Hyperintensity Using ComBat And Deming Regression
Reyes, Calvin, Gebre, Robel K , Gunter, Jeffrey L. , Hu, Mingzhao, Schwarz, Christopher G, Meyer, Nolan , Kantarci, Kejal, Jack, C. R., Vemuri, Prashanthi, Hu, Mingzhao, Schwarz, Christopher G. , Reid, Robert I. , Kantarci, Kejal , Jack, Clifford R. , Vemuri, Prashanthi

Mayo Clinic

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S7 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70861_108630 Get It

Abstract Background Multi‐site aging and dementia studies are challenged by data heterogeneity caused by scanner (manufacturer and protocol) related variability. Quantitative analysis of white matter hyperintensity (WMH) from pooled samples, a traditional marker of cerebrovascular disease, is sensitive to machine variability. Our goal was to compare Deming (symmetric) linear regression and ComBat, a common method used for harmonizing neuroimaging measurements, for harmonizing WMH measurements on participants scanned on two different scanners (GE and Siemens) and protocols (2D FLAIR on GE and 3D FLAIR on Siemens). Methods Cognitively unimpaired (CU) ( n =53, age (mean (SD))=67 (15) years) and cognitively impaired (CI; MCI/dementia) ( n =34, age (mean (SD))=82 (9) years) participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo ADRC were scanned on GE and Siemens scanners within a week of each other (typically done on the same day). WMH as a percentage of total intracranial volume was measured using multispectral segmentation of FLAIR and T1‐weighted images (Gunter et. al. AAIC 2023). We used Deming regression as it includes errors in both input dimensions. ComBat was applied using age, sex, and diagnosis as covariates, with scanner vendor and protocol as the batch variable. We assessed the inter‐scanner similarity using Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) analysis, where a value of zero indicates identical distributions, p >0.05 indicates no significant difference under H 0 . (Gretton et al., JMLR 2012). Results Our results showed that the distribution of WMH measurements, which were different in the CU group, were more similar after Deming than ComBat harmonization (Figure 1). This was confirmed by the lower MMD in the CU group from Deming regression (‐0.01 ( p =0.76) from 0.03 ( p =0.05)) compared to ComBat (0.04 ( p =0.02))(Figure 1). However, ComBat and Deming were unable to create distributions as compatible as original measurements for the CI group. Conclusion Using a unique dataset of the same participants scanned close in time on different scanner and protocols, we found that (1) MMD measurements were useful to test the need/improvement due to harmonization; (2) ComBat was not substantially better at creating compatible distributions between scanner vendors than Deming regression, and both were sometimes inadequate. Future work will require alternative models to linear scale and shift transformations.
Every Centiloid, from Everywhere, All at Once
Snyder, Heather M. , Apostolova, Liana G., Bombois, Stéphanie, Bourgeat, Pierrick, Braskie, Meredith N. , Carrillo, Maria, Casaletto, Kaitlin B, Chang, C. -C., Chang, Hsin‐I., Chao, Yishu , Chetelat, Gaël, Collij, Lyduine E., Dickerson, Brad C., Dubois, Bruno, Valdez, Alfonso Fajardo, Farrar, Gill , Fortea, Juan M., Frisoni, Giovanni B, Gu, Yuna , Guo, Tengfei, Hansson, Oskar H., Huang, Q., Huang, Shu‐Hua , Ishii, Kenji, Jagust, William J., Kato, Takashi , Koeppe, R. A., Kramer, Joel H, Landau, Susan M., Landeau, Brigitte, Lee, Sangwon, Lopresti, Brian J. , Lowe, Val J. , Mao, Xiaoxie, March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L., Mézenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C. , Franquesa‐Mullerat, María , Nakamura, Akinori, O'Bryant, Sid E., Pappas, Ioannis G., Rowe, C. C., Schott, Jonathan M, Schwartz, Daniel L. , Schwarz, Christopher G, Seo, Sang Won, Shekari, Mahnaz, Smith, Ruben, Sokołowski, Andrzej , Soleimani‐Meigooni, David, Sperling, Reisa A., Sun, Pan , Toga, Arthur W., Vaillancourt, David E. , Flier, Wiesje M. van der, Vemuri, Prashanthi, Villain, Nicolas , Villemagne, Victor L., Villeneuve, Sylvia , Wang, Wei‐En, Weiner, Michael S. W., Xiao, Cally , Xie, Fang, Yoon, Yeojun, Yun, M R , Rabinovici, Gil D., Wang, Wei‐en , Blazhenets, Ganna , Apostolova, Liana G. , Asken, Breton M. , Bejanin, Alexandre , Bombois, Stéphanie , Bourgeat, Pierrick , Casaletto, Kaitlin B. , Cash, David M. , Chang, Hsin‐I , Chételat, Gaël , Coath, William , Collij, Lyduine , Colmant, Lise , Dickerson, Brad C., Dubois, Bruno , Fortea, Juan , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Gardner, Raquel C. , Garibotto, Valentina , Guo, Tengfei , Hanseeuw, Bernard , Hansson, Oskar , Harrison, Theresa M. , Ishii, Kazunari , Jagust, William J. , Kramer, Joel H. , Landau, Susan, Landeau, Brigitte , Masters, Colin L. , Mézenge, Florence, Nakamura, Akinori , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Peretti, Débora Elisa , Quenon, Lisa , Salvadó, Gemma , Schott, Jonathan M. , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Seo, Sang Won , Shekari, Mahnaz , Silbert, Lisa C. , Sokolowski, Andrzej, Soleimani‐Meigooni, David N. , Sperling, Reisa Anne , Sun, Pan , Toga, Arthur W. , Giessen, Elsmarieke van de , Flier, Wiesje M. van der , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Villemagne, Victor L. , Weiner, Michael W. , Xie, Fang , Young, Christina B. , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Joie, Renaud La

Mayo Clinic

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S8 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70862_110011 Get It

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.
Effects of de‐facing with mri_reface on brain measurements in ethnoracially diverse cohorts
Schwarz, Christopher G, Prakaashana, Carl M., Gunter, Jeffrey L. , Graff‐Radford, Jonathan, Petersen, Ronald, Jack, C. R., Schwarz, Christopher G. , Kremers, Walter K. , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Senjem, Matthew L. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Kantarci, Kejal , Graff‐Radford, Jonathan , Knopman, David S. , Petersen, Ronald, Jack, Clifford R.

Mayo Clinic

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S8 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70862_109991 Get It

Abstract Background Use of software to “de‐face” research brain images has grown as advances in automated face recognition have made it increasingly possible to re‐identify participants. Imaging studies of Alzheimer’s Disease and related diseases have included more participants from historically underrepresented groups, but de‐facing software have primarily been validated using images from mostly non‐Hispanic White participants, and its performance has not been directly compared across ethnoracial groups. Method From The Health and Aging Brain Study: Health Disparities (HABS‐HD) study, we constructed a sample of 305 T1‐weighted MRI from HABS‐HD baseline visits, matched across three ethnoracial groups (non‐Hispanic White (NHW, n = 104), non‐Hispanic African American (AA, n = 104), Mexican American (MA, n = 97)) according to age‐decade, sex, cognitive status (impaired/unimpaired), and MRI scanner model. We ran mri_reface 0.3.5 on each image, and we ran FreeSurfer 7.4.1 on each unmodified image and on each de‐faced output. We then compared regional gray matter (GM) volume and cortical thickness measurements by subtracting each de‐faced image measurement from the corresponding unmodified image measurement. We compared these differences between de‐faced and unmodified images across the three matched groups using GLM analyses adjusted for age, sex, and cognitive status, and Bonferroni corrected. Result When aggregating across all brain regions, differences in cortical thickness measures due to de‐facing were significantly different between the NHW and MA groups, and between AA and MA, but not between NHW and AA (Figure 1). Differences between these group means were <0.005mm. For GM volume, differences were significant between AA and MA (magnitude < 0.2%), but not between NHW and AA or NHW and MA (Figure 2). Examining each region individually (Figure 3), cortical thickness differences were significant for only 4 regions (all with magnitudes <0.03mm), and GM volume differences were significant for only 6 regions (all with magnitudes <2%). Conclusion Effects of mri_reface on FreeSurfer brain measurements were significantly different across ethnoracial groups. Our future work will optimize mri_reface to eliminate these differences. However, the magnitudes of these differences are sufficiently small that they are unlikely to have a practical effect on analyses of data using current versions.
External Validation of Joint Propagation Model‐Based Tau PET CenTauR units
Leuzy, Antoine , Raket, Lars Lau, Villemagne, Victor L., Klein, Gregory , Tonietto, Matteo, Olafson, Emily, Baker, Suzanne L. , Saad, Ziad S., Bullich, Santiago , Lopresti, Brian J. , Sanabria, Sandra , Boada, Mercè, Charil, A., Collins, Emily C., Collins, Jessica, Gunn, Roger N. , Higuchi, Makoto, Hostetler, Eric D., Hutchison, R. Matthew, Iaccarino, Leonardo, Insel, Philip S., Irizarry, Michael C., Jack, C. R., Jagust, William J., Johnson, Keith A., Johnson, Sterling C., Karten, Yashmin, Marquié, Marta, Mathotaarachchi, Sulantha , Mintun, Mark A., Huang, Q., Mao, Xiaxie, Gnörich, Johannes , Pappas, Ioannis, Petersen, Ronald, Schwarz, Christopher G, Smith, Ruben, Stephens, Andrew , Whittington, Alex , Carrillo, Maria, Pontecorvo, Michael J. , Haeberlein, Samantha Budd , Dunn, Billy , Kolb, H., Stephenson, Diane , Tatton, Nadine , Brendel, M., Xie, Fang, Hansson, Oskar H., Rial, Alexis Moscoso , Rakêt, Lars Lau , Villemagne, Victor L. , Tonietto, Mattéo , Olafson, Emily, Lutz, Olivia , Boada, Merce , Betthauser, Tobey J. , Collins, Emily C. , Higuchi, Makoto, Hutchison, R. Matthew , Iaccarino, Leonardo , Insel, Philip S. , Irizarry, Michael C. , Jack, Clifford R. , Jagust, William J. , Johnson, Keith A. , Johnson, Sterling C. , Marquié, Marta , Ossenkoppele, Rik , Pappas, Ioannis , Petersen, Ronald, Chiotis, Konstantinos , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Rosa-Neto, Pedro , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Kolb, Hartmuth C. , Brendel, Matthias , Rowe, Christopher Cleon , Hansson, Oskar , Doré, Vincent

Mayo Clinic

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S8 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70862_109722 Get It

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.
Patterns of Longitudinal Regional Brain Atrophy in Patients With Different Progressive Supranuclear Palsy Clinical Variants
Tosakulwong, Nirubol , Weigand, Stephen D. , Ali, Farwa , Stephens, Yehkyoung C. , Machulda, Mary M. , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Senjem, Matthew L. , Jack, Clifford R. , Josephs, Keith A. , Whitwell, Jennifer L. , Weigand, Stephen D , Ali, Farwa , Stephens, Yehkyoung C , Machulda, Mary M , Schwarz, Christopher G , Senjem, Matthew L , Jack, Clifford R , Josephs, Keith A , Whitwell, Jennifer , Kumar, Mahesh

Mayo Clinic

Neurology | November 25, 2025 | Volume: 105 | Issue: 12 | Pages: No page available

10.1212/wnl.0000000000214434 | PMID 41289551 Get It

Staging Alzheimer’s disease through amyloid and tau PET
Johnson, Derek R. , Wiste, Heather J. , Lowe, Val J. , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Knopman, David S. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Boeve, Bradley F. , Graff‐Radford, Jonathan , Cogswell, Petrice M. , Senjem, Matthew C, Therneau, Terry M. , Griswold, Michael , Hu, Mingzhao, Petersen, Ronald , Knopman, David S. , Kantarci, Kejal , Boeve, Brad , Graff-Radford, Jonathan , Cogswell, Petrice M , Jack, Clifford R , Schwarz, Christopher G , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Johnson, Derek R , Kantarci, Kejal , Senjem, Matthew C, Jack, Clifford R.

Mayo Clinic

Brain | September 18, 2025 | Volume: 149 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 1023-1034

10.1093/brain/awaf346 | PMID 40974012 Get It

Abstract A workgroup assembled by the Alzheimer’s Association recently described a conceptual framework for Alzheimer’s disease biological staging based on amyloid and tau PET imaging. However, specific tau PET cut points were left to be determined, a step necessary prior to clinical application. We sought to operationalize and evaluate Alzheimer’s disease biological staging by identifying meaningful tau PET cut points to define the four biological stages in a well-characterized participant cohort and describe the features of individuals placed into the different biological stages. The primary analysis included 896 participants in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging or the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center longitudinal cohorts. A validation cohort consisted of 328 participants in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Both cognitively normal and impaired individuals with positive amyloid PET and evaluable tau PET imaging were included. Tau PET cut points were identified with Gaussian mixture models to characterize Alzheimer’s disease biological stage in study participants with different clinical diagnoses and objective degrees of cognitive impairment as measured by Mini-Mental State Examination. A tau PET cut point in the medial temporal region and two cut points in the temporoparietal region were identified to produce, collectively, the four Alzheimer’s disease biological stages described in the revised criteria. Increasing stage was associated with greater likelihood of mild cognitive impairment and dementia diagnosis and worsening cognitive performance on Mini-Mental State Examination and Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes, a result that was reproduced in the independent Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort. This study provided empirical validation for the concept of using amyloid PET and tau PET to separate subjects with biomarker-proven Alzheimer’s disease into four biological stages with distinct characteristics.
Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 to Identify Preclinical Alzheimer Disease
Janelidze, Shorena, Bali, Divya , Dolado, Anna Orduña , Binette, Alexa Pichet , Rahmouni, Nesrine , Blennow, Kaj, Doré, Vincent , Feizpour, Azadeh , Rowe, Christopher C., Villeneuve, Sylvia , Petersen, Ronald C., Jack, Clifford R. , Groups, ADNI, ALFA, and PREVENT-AD Study, Adegoke, Olusegun, Hussen, Kedir Adem, Aisen, Paul, Ajayi, Adeyinka, Amaza, Hannatu, Apostolova, Liana G. , Ashford, Miriam T. , Ayo, Omobolanle, Bernard, Marie , Bernhardt, Haley, Boatwright, Virginia, Borowski, Bret, Brylska, Magdalena, Buckholtz, Neil, Cabrera, Yuliana, Cairns, Nigel J. , Carrillo, Maria, Choe, Mark, Clanton, Taylor, Conti, Cat, Craft, Hannah, Crawford, Karen , DeCarli, Charles , Benedetto, Joseph Di, Diaz, Adam , Drake, Erin, Faber, Kelley, Felmlee, Joel P. , Fidell, Andrea, Flenniken, Derek , Fockler, Juliet , Forghanian-Arani, Arvin, Frank, R.T., Franklin, Erin , Glittenberg, Matt, Gunter, Jeff, Guzmán, Vanessa , Harvey, Danielle, Hedberg, Caitie, Hergesheimer, Lindsey, Hoang, Isabella, Jackson, Jonathan , Jagust, William, Jahanshad, Neda , Jenkins, Cecily, Jiménez, Gustavo , Jin, Chengshi , Kachaturian, Zaven, Kaddurah-Daouk, Rima, Kantarci, Kejal, Karlawish, Jason , Khachaturian, Zaven S., Knaack, Alexander , Korecka, Magdalena , Kormos, Adrienne, Germano, Kaori Kubo, Kwang, Winnie, Lacy, Kaci, Landau, Susan, Lopresti, Brian J. , Magana, Fabiola, Mahboubi, Payam, Malone, Ian G., Masliah, Eliezer , Masterman, Donna, Matoush, Leonard, Miller, Melanie J. , Molchan, Susan, Montine, Tom, Moore-Weiss, John, Neu, Scott, Nosheny, Rachel L. , Ogwang, Sheila, Okonkwo, Ozioma, Parkins, Shaniya, Perrin, Richard J. , Petersen, Ronald, Pizzola, Jeremy, Potter, Zoë, Potter, William Z., Rafii, Michael, Raman, Rema , Reyes, Calvin, Reyes, Denise , Robison, Justin , Chen, Stephanie Rossi, Ryan, Laurie, Sachdev, Pallavi, Saito, Naomi , Salazar, Jennifer, Thao, Mai Seng, Shaffer, Elizabeth , Shaw, Leslie M. , Silverberg, Nina, Strong, Joe, Talavera, Sandra , Taylor‐Reinwald, Lisa, Thal, Leon J., Thomas, Lisa , Thompson, Paul , Tosun, Duygu , Trojanowki, John Q., Sacrey, Diana Truran, Villemagne, Victor L. , Walter, Sarah , Wan, Yang , Ward, Chad, Webb, Caitlin, Weiner, Michael W. , Weisensel, Trinity, Zimmerman, Caileigh, Poirier, Judes, Breitner, John C.S. , Badawy, Mohamed , Baril, Andrée‐Ann, Aguilar, Ricardo A, Gorriti, Annabella B, Gispert, Lidia C, Martinez, Alba C, Iglesias, Ruth D, Julian, Sherezade F, Serra, P, González‐Escalante, Armand , Penas, Laura H, Rodriguez, Gema H, Ninou, Jordi H, Gamaz, Laura Iglesias, Knezevic, Iva, Alvarez, Paula M, Diaz, Tania M, Palacios, Eva , Ballester, A, Mendez, Sandra P, Freixedes, Laura Ros, Vila, Aleix S, Harster, Lluis S, Prat, Anna S, Jaramillo, Marc V, Jack, Clifford R , Feizpour, Azadeh , Doré, Vincent , Pichet Binette, Alexa , Salvadó, Gemma , Janelidze, Shorena , Therriault, Joseph , Brum, Wagner Scheeren , Stomrud, Erik , Mattsson, Niklas , Palmqvist, Sebastian , Coomans, Emma M. , Teunissen, Charlotte E. , Flier, Wiesje M. van der , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Gispert, Juan Domingo , Blennow, Kaj , Alcolea, Daniel , Fortea, Juan , Johnson, Sterling C. , Rosa-Neto, Pedro , Schindler, Suzanne E. , Suárez‐Calvet, Marc , Ossenkoppele, Rik , Hansson, Oskar , Groups, ADNI, ALFA, and PREVENT-AD Study, Aisen, Paul , Barnes, Lisa L. , Beckett, Laurel , Das, Sandhitsu R. , Donohue, Michael , Drake, Erin, Erickson, Claire M. , Fletcher, Evan M. , Arani, Arvin , Foroud, Tatiana , Fox, Nick C. , Frank, Richard, González, Hector, Green, Robert C. , Grill, Joshua D. , Harkins, Kristin , Ho, Carole , Hsiao, John , Jo, Taeho, Kaddurah‐Daouk, Rima , Kantarci, Kejal , Koeppe, Robert A. , Largent, Emily A. , Lee, Edward B. , Lee, Virginia M.‐Y. , Morris, John C. , Nho, Kwangsik T. , Nir, Talia M. , Nudelman, Kelly , Okonkwo, Ozioma, Petersen, Ronald, Rabinovici, Gil D. , Rafii, Michael S. , Reid, Robert, Reyes, Denise, Risacher, Shannon L. , Mindt, Mónica Rivera , Sachdev, Pallavi, Saykin, Andrew J. , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Senjem, Matthew L. , Li, Shen , Smith, Stephanie R. , Snyder, Peter J. , Thomopoulos, Sophia I. , Toga, Arthur W. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Yushkevich, Paul A. , Badawy, Mohamed, Baillet, Sylvain , Minguillón, Carolina , Brugulat‐Serrat, Anna , Cacciaglia, Raffaele , Campo, Marta del , Pascual, Maria, Rodríguez‐Fernández, Blanca , Vilor‐Tejedor, Natàlia

Mayo Clinic

JAMA Neurology | September 15, 2025 | Volume: 82 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 1122

10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.3217 | PMID 40952756 Get It

Importance Advances in Alzheimer disease (AD) have shifted research focus to earlier disease stages, necessitating more scalable approaches to identify cognitively unimpaired individuals with amyloid β (Aβ) pathology. Objective To assess the utility of plasma phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217) for classifying Aβ status in cognitively unimpaired individuals, both as a stand-alone test and in a 2-step approach where positive plasma results were confirmed using a second modality (Aβ positron emission tomography [PET] or cerebrospinal fluid [CSF]). Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional cohort study used data collected between June 2009 and March 2024. We included 2916 cognitively unimpaired participants from 12 international independent observational cohorts in the US, Europe, Australia, and Canada with available plasma p-tau217 levels and CSF or PET Aβ biomarkers. Performance comparisons between mass spectrometry and immunoassay-based p-tau217 measurements were also performed (n = 964). Exposures Plasma p-tau217 levels measured by immunoassay. Main Outcome and Measures Aβ status, determined by CSF or Aβ PET biomarkers. Results Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. As a stand-alone test, plasma p-tau217 achieved a positive predictive value (PPV) of 79% (95% CI, 74-84) and an overall accuracy of 81% (95% CI, 80-82). In a 2-step workflow, the PPV and accuracy significantly increased to 91% (95% CI, 86-95). While this approach required screening of 677 individuals with plasma p-tau217 to identify 100 Aβ-positive individuals, compared to 536 participants when using PET alone, it reduced the need for PET testing to 124. Immunoassays demonstrated comparable PPVs to mass spectrometry (80% [95% CI, 74-86] vs 85% [95% CI, 81-90]; P = .12) but significantly lower overall accuracy (82% [95% CI, 79-84]% vs 88 [95% CI, 86-90]; P &amp;lt; .001) and true Aβ-positive detection rate (49% [95% CI, 43-55] vs 69% [95% CI, 64-75]; P &amp;lt; .001). Conclusions and Relevance The findings highlight the potential of plasma p-tau217 as a stand-alone test—or when used in a sequential 2-step approach alongside PET or CSF testing—as a cost-effective, scalable, and minimally burdensome strategy for identifying preclinical AD. Tailored screening workflows that incorporate p-tau217 can improve efficiency in participant selection for preclinical AD trials and, in the future, help guide access to disease-modifying treatments.
Predictive Value of Plasma Biomarkers in Tau‐ PET Transitions
Graff‐Radford, Jonathan , Syrjanen, Jeremy A. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Lowe, Val J. , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Wiste, Heather J. , Kremers, Walter K. , Binette, Alexa Pichet , Stomrud, Erik , Petersen, Ronald C. , Algeciras-Schimnich, Alicia , Pichet Binette, Alexa , Knopman, David S. , Petersen, Ronald C , Hansson, Oskar , Schwarz, Christopher G , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Stomrud, Erik , Kremers, Walter K , Algeciras‐Schimnich, Alicia , Smith, Ruben , Mattsson, Niklas , Palmqvist, Sebastian , Knopman, David S. , Cogswell, Petrice M. , Hansson, Oskar , Jack, Clifford R.

Mayo Clinic

Annals of Neurology | September 10, 2025 | Volume: 98 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1249-1260

10.1002/ana.78003 | PMID 40927954 Get It

Objective The objective of this study was to determine the predictive value of amyloid‐positron emission tomography (PET) versus the plasma ratio of phosphorylated tau at threonine 217 (p‐tau217) to non‐phosphorylated tau217 (%p‐tau217) for tau‐PET transitions (T− to T+). The added value of combining plasma amyloid‐β 42 and amyloid‐β 40 (Aβ42/40) and %p‐tau217 into an amyloid probability score (APS2) was also assessed. Methods Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) participants had plasma markers measured at via mass spectrometry (MS), an amyloid‐PET scan, and a tau‐PET (meta‐temporal region of interest [ROI]) negative scan (standardized uptake value ratio [SUVR] <1.29) at the index (baseline) date, along with one or more follow‐up tau‐PET scans. The BioFINDER‐2 cohort was used for validation. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, and apolipoprotein ( APOE ) ε4 were used to assess predictors, with scaling to the interquartile range (IQR) for comparability of hazard ratios (HR). Results Among 255 tau‐PET negative MCSA participants (median age: 71.9 years), 37 converted to tau‐PET positive (median follow‐up time: 3.81 years). Higher %p‐tau217 (HR: 1.52 [95% CI: 1.28–1.80]), amyloid‐PET centiloid (HR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.20–1.79]), and APS2 (HR: 1.62 [95% CI: 1.22–2.16]) predicted tau‐PET conversion. However, Aβ42/40 (HR: 0.94 [95% CI: 0.54–1.66]) was not associated with tau‐PET conversion. In the BioFINDER‐2 cohort (605 tau‐negative, median age: 70.2), 33 converted to tau‐positive (median follow‐up time: 2 years), with higher %p‐tau217 (HR: 1.80 [95% CI: 1.50–2.17]), amyloid‐PET centiloid (HR: 2.29 [95% CI: 1.77–2.97]), and lower Aβ42/40 (HR: 2.38 [95% CI: 1.17–4.83]) predicting conversion. Interpretation In two cohorts, %p‐tau217 was associated with tau‐PET conversion, comparable to amyloid‐PET. APS2 also predicted conversion in the MCSA cohort, whereas Aβ42/40 predicted conversion in the BioFINDER‐2 cohort, which had more individuals with cognitive impairment. ANN NEUROL 2025;98:1249–1260
Decoding Thalamic Glial Interplay in Multiple Sclerosis Through Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and Positron Emission Tomography
Kara, Firat , Neyal, Nur , Kamykowski, Michael G. , Kendall‐Thomas, June, Przybelski, Scott A. , Fought, Angela J. , Port, John D. , Deelchand, Dinesh K. , Lowe, Val J. , Öz, Gülin , Kantarci, Kejal, Kantarci, Orhun H. , Zeydan, Burcu , Kantarci, Kejal , Kendall-Thomas, June, Morrison, Holly A, Port, John D , Deelchand, Dinesh K , Lowe, Val J , Öz, Gülin , Zeydan, Burcu , Kantarci, Kejal , Kara, Firat , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Morrison, Holly A., Senjem, Matthew L.

Mayo Clinic

International Journal of Molecular Sciences | September 5, 2025 | Volume: 26 | Issue: 17 | Pages: 8656

10.3390/ijms26178656 | PMID 40943577 Get It

The study assesses the relationship between thalamic proton-MR spectroscopy (1H-MRS) metabolites and thalamic 11C-ER176 translocator-protein positron emission tomography (TSPO-PET) standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) to advance our understanding of thalamic involvement in multiple sclerosis (MS)-associated neurodegeneration and disability. In this prospective cross-sectional study, patients with MS (pwMS) and controls underwent 3T-MRI, 1H-MRS, and 11C-ER176-PET targeting the thalamus. MRI-derived thalamic volume was normalized by intracranial volume. 1H-MRS metabolites—N-acetylaspartate (NAA), glutamate (Glu), glutamine (Gln), total choline (tCho), and myo-inositol (mIns)—were normalized to total creatine (tCr). Clinical disability was evaluated using MS-specific tests of Expanded Disability Status Scale-EDSS and MS-functional composite-MSFC (including Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test-PASAT). Compared to controls (n = 30), pwMS (n = 21) exhibited smaller thalamic volume, higher thalamic 1H-MRS mIns/tCr (putative gliosis marker), and higher thalamic 11C-ER176-PET SUVR (glial density marker). In pwMS, higher thalamic mIns/tCr (r = −0.67) and tCho/tCr (r = −0.52) correlated with smaller thalamic volume. In pwMS, higher thalamic mIns/tCr correlated with higher thalamic 11C-ER176-PET SUVR (r = 0.48) and decreased cognitive function (PASAT, rho = −0.48). In controls, decreased thalamic NAA/tCr correlated with increased thalamic 11C-ER176-PET SUVR (r = −0.41). Thalamus, a core central nervous system relay, is affected early in MS disease course. Glial-mediated innate immune activation in the thalamus, evaluated by increased 1H-MRS mIns/tCr and 11C-ER176-PET SUVR, is associated with loss of thalamic volume and increased disability in pwMS. The multimodal imaging approach with 1H-MRS mIns/tCr and 11C-ER176-PET SUVR emerges as potential glial biomarkers, to better understand disease mechanisms and evaluate therapeutic interventions targeting glial activity in MS.