Citations

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.

Abstract Background Many risk factors can contribute to the occurrence of Alzheimer`s Disease (AD). However, little is known about the impact of dementia risk factors to the uptake of tau‐PET tracers. Therefore, in this work we aim to investigate the influence of dementia risk factors and comorbidities on 18 F‐Flortaucipir (FTP) and 18 F‐MK6240 (MK) tau‐PET tracers’ uptake. Additionally, we will assess how these factors impact the association of tau‐PET and cognition. Method We accessed 436 individuals across the aging and AD spectrum (251 amyloid negative and 185 amyloid positive) from the HEAD study, with available Aβ‐PET, FTP, MK, and clinical assessments. Linear regression models corrected for age, sex, clinical diagnosis, and study site tested the association of factors with tau‐PET tracers in the medial temporal lobe (MTL). A tau‐PET × risk factor term was added to test the influence of risk factors to the association of tau with cognition. Result In amyloid‐β negative individuals, high BMI were positively associated with the uptake of both FTP and MK, whereas hearing loss were positively associated only with MK in the MTL (Figure 1A). In amyloid‐β positive individuals, high body mass index (BMI), hearing loss and sleep disorders were negatively associated with the uptake of both tau‐PET tracers in the MTL. On the other hand, hypertension showed negative association only with MK uptake (Figure 1B). Using Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores as outcome, we observed that amyloid‐β negative individuals with high BMI showed worse cognitive performance as a function of both MK and FTP in the MTL, whereas individuals with vision impairment and hearing loss showed worse cognitive performance as a function of MK only (Figure 2A). Amyloid‐β positive individuals with hypercholesterolemia and hypertension presented worse cognitive performance as a function of both MK and FTP in the MTL (Figure 2B). Conclusion In this preliminary analysis, sleep disorders, hypertension, and high BMI were independently associated with tau‐PET tracer uptake, with the effects varying according to amyloid‐β pathology. These prevalent factors in the elderly also changed the association between tau‐PET and cognition, underscoring the need for further studies to better understand their role in modulating this relationship.

Abstract Background Cerebrovascular disease (CeVD), a common co‐pathology with Alzheimer’s Disease, has not been sufficiently operationalized, limiting its usage for accurate estimation of vascular contributions to cognitive impairment (VCI). The proposed CeVD biomarker classification uses more recently developed diffusion MRI markers (fractional anisotropy of Genu (FA), free water (FW), peak width of skeletonized mean diffusivity (PSMD), and ARTS score (ARTS)) as surrogates of early CeVD changes and white matter hyperintensities (WMH) as surrogate of late CeVD changes. Our primary goal was to characterize the temporal progression of these biomarkers to enhance CeVD biomarker staging. Our secondary goal was to establish cut‐points for normal/abnormal CeVD biomarkers. Methods Using CeVD biomarker data from 3,953 Mayo Clinic Study of Aging participants (split 80‐20 for training‐testing with training used for cut‐point estimation), we classified participants into VCI+/VCI‐ (Fazekas≥2 and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)≥0.5/not). We evaluated cut‐points using four criteria: specificity‐based, sensitivity‐based, accuracy young referent (VCI+ vs. 30‐49 yrs VCI‐), and accuracy age‐/sex‐matched referent (VCI+ vs. age‐/sex‐matched VCI‐). After selecting a cut‐point based on sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV), we used nonlinear mixed‐effects (NLME) models to examine temporal progression in 2,047 participants (aged 43.39‐92.51 years, 47% female) with longitudinal data incorporating participant‐specific time shifts, correlations between random effects of each biomarker, and covariates (age, sex, vascular risk, education, APOE4 status). Results The accuracy young referent criterion produced the best sensitivity‐PPV tradeoff across all diffusion MRI markers (Figure 1). Diffusion MRI biomarkers consistently progressed 10 years earlier than WMH (Figure 2). Whole‐brain diffusion MRI measures (FW, PSMD, ARTS) were highly correlated with WMH, showing synchronized progression curves with a time offset. The regional genu measure (interhemispheric disconnection) progressed earlier with a steadier slope across decades and had comparatively lower correlation with WMH. Conclusions We developed cut‐points for diffusion MRI markers using classification of VCI based on Fazekas scale and CDR. Cut‐points from the accuracy young referent (VCI+ vs. 30‐49 yrs VCI‐) outperformed the accuracy age‐/sex‐matched referent (VCI+ vs. age‐/sex‐matched VCI‐), suggesting that older VCI‐ individuals may have unmeasured CeVD changes. Diffusion MRI markers progressed earlier relative to WMH, highlighting their potential for early detection, improved clinical assessment, and targeted interventions.

Abstract Background Diffusion MRI (dMRI) measures are increasingly being used as biomarkers for aging and dementia in multi‐center studies. Measurements in longitudinal studies are often acquired on different systems, which can result in systematic differences of machine origin (e.g. vendor, hardware, algorithms). This may warrant harmonization prior to pooling multi‐site data. However, harmonization algorithms may introduce a risk of removing valuable information content and reducing sensitivity to physiological factors (e.g. sex, age, disease). Here, we tested the hypothesis that protocol standardization may minimize machine‐origin differences, obviating a need for post‐acquisition harmonization in a two‐site (Mississippi‐MS and Minnesota‐MN) cohort of the longitudinal Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Methods Two data sets were analyzed: first, a crossover dataset with 80 participants (scanned within 2 days) bridging two different protocols on GE and Siemens scanners; second, participants scanned using standardized protocols from the ongoing MCSA ( N MN‐MCSA =204; N MS‐MCSA =52). Parameters are listed in Figure 1. For crossover data, analyses were repeated with GE data resampled to 2‐mm isotropic resolution, and discarding Siemens‐only b‐shells to artificially reduce protocol disparities. Analysis encompassed visualization of overlain subjectwise histogram‐derived densities obtained from whole‐brain masks for dMRI measures; and median dMRI measures from within the genu of the corpus callosum (GCC) with nonparametric statistical testing. When available, both DTI and NODDI measures were compared. Results Pronounced visual distributional differences seen between MD and FA in crossover data were reduced with resampling of GE data and including only b‐shells shared across acquisitions. For the resampled/reshelled data, significant differences remained for all GCC‐FA comparisons, but not all GCC‐MD (Figure 2). For the ongoing MCSA data from two sites, MD and FA whole‐brain densities were more closely aligned, with GCC‐FA and GCC‐MD showing no significant differences (Figure 3). NODDI measures showed more discordant densities than DTI measures, including shifts in most probable values and differences in distributional arrangement. Conclusions Our work provides further evidence supporting protocol and processing standardization for minimizing machine‐origin differences prior to considering harmonization. Differences in dMRI metrics seen when comparing across unstandardized protocols were reduced when protocols were standardized. NODDI metrics had more apparent sensitivity to site than DTI measures.

Abstract Background T2*‐weighted imaging is of paramount importance for patient treatment eligibility and safety monitoring in anti‐amyloid pharmaceutical clinical trials and clinical care. Recently with the adoption of multi‐echo GRE (GRE) sequences, susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI), and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) can be obtained in the same acquisition. In 2024, the QSM Consensus Organization Committee released a white paper recommending at least 1 mm isotropic voxel size for QSM. In clinical workflows microbleed detection is performed with higher in‐plane resolution (0.5x0.5mm 2 ), and large out‐of‐plane resolution (∼1.8mm), which was used in the ADNI4 protocol. In the CLARiTI protocol, a 1mm isotropic resolution was adopted. The objective of this work was to compare susceptibility estimates between the ADNI4 (0.5x0.5x1.8mm 3 ) and CLARiTI (1mm 3 ) protocols. Method The ADNI4 and CLARiTI QSM protocols were acquired on forty‐seven subjects (33 cognitively unimpaired (CU), 14 cognitively impaired (CI), in the same scan session. The groups were defined by their Clinical Demential Rating (CDR) global score (CDR global = 0 for CU, and CDR global >= 0.5 for CI subjects). QSM images were generated using publically available software (STI Suite, UC Berkeley). Mean susceptibility values in atlas regions were compared. Result Significant group differences (CU vs. CI) were observed in the fusiform and middle occipital gyrus with the ADNI4 protocol, only in the rectus with the CLARiTI protocol (Figure 1). These three regions are small in size and closer to surface‐air interfaces, which may have impacted estimation accuracy. However, in the substantia nigra and its sub‐regions (pars compacta and pars reticulata), which shows increased susceptibility in Lewy body disease, the ADNI4 and CLARiTI protocols were in good agreement (r 2 > 0.9) (Figure 2). Conclusion Group differences were observed between the ADNI4 and CLARiTI QSM only in 3 small regions close to surface‐air interfaces in this small dataset. The two techniques showed highly correlated (r 2 = 0.93) estimates in the substantia nigra, a region with high susceptibility due to iron deposition. Strong correlations between the two protocols are encouraging. Radiologists have historically preferred submillimeter in‐plane resolution for microbleed detection, which is more time manageable with anisotropic imaging.

Abstract Background Tau PET measures are inherently continuous and applying dichotomized thresholds introduces conceptual and analytical idiosyncrasies. Understanding the limitations in the transition from tau‐negative to tau‐positive classifications is crucial for the effective use of these thresholds. This study aims to determine the confidence levels of tau PET thresholds of abnormality for different tau PET tracers by characterizing their "gray zone" using the universal tau PET scale (Uniτ, www.unitau.app ). Method We evaluated 485 individuals across the aging and AD spectrum from the HEAD study, with head‐to‐head scans for MK6240 and Flortaucipir. Uniτ estimates were derived from the Meta‐Temporal ROI. Tau positivity (T+) was defined as Uniτ values exceeding the mean plus 3 SD of individuals younger than 28 years ( n = 24). Two physicians independently performed a visual assessment of tau positivity for each tracer, with agreement indicating clear tau pathology (TVR+). Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of TVR+ across Uniτ values for each tracer ( n = 189, CU elderly Aβ‐ and CI Aβ+). Individuals were classified as negative, positive, or within a "gray zone" between the most liberal T+ threshold and varying TVR+ probability thresholds (50%, 75%, 90%, 95%, and 99%). Result The Uniτ gray zone, defined as a function of TVR+ probabilities, demonstrated consistency between the two tracers, with differences observed only in the decimal range. The most liberal Uniτ threshold for T+ was 11.0 for both MK6240 and Flortaucipir, closely matching the 50% TVR+ probability threshold (11.1 for MK6240 and 11.7 for Flortaucipir). Higher TVR+ probabilities corresponded to increased Uniτ values with MK6240 and Flortaucipir showing near‐identical values between the tracers: 14.2 and 14.8 for 75%, 17.3 and 17.9 for 90%, 19.4 and 19.9 for 95%, and 24.1 and 24.6 for 99%, respectively (Figure 1). In total, 26 participants fell within the gray zone for MK6240, compared to 47 participants for Flortaucipir. Conclusion These findings highlight the potential of Uniτ to provide a standardized approach for assessing tau positivity across tracers. By combining quantitative Uniτ measures with visual assessments, we enhance the understanding of tau positivity certainty, particularly in the transition between negative and positive classifications.

Abstract Background Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) is often misdiagnosed or conflated with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) due to overlapping clinical presentations and neuropathological features. The presence of AD‐like features correlates with accelerated cognitive decline and a worse overall prognosis. Compared to AD, studies suggest that amyloid uptake in DLB may spare the occipital lobe. This project aims to investigate whether amyloid PET could be leveraged to differentiate between AD and DLB patients, with the goal of improving diagnostic accuracy and supporting patient stratification and safety in anti‐amyloid trials. Method This study involves collaboration across six centres (University of Geneva, BioFINDER, AMPLE, AMYPAD PNHS, MCSA, GEHC), each contributing amyloid PET imaging data from patients diagnosed with DLB based on clinical or neuropathological assessments. Moreover, each center provided an additional subset of AD and healthy controls, then matched to DLB samples based on age/sex/APOE genotype/education for comparison. A sub analysis will be performed on patients with evidence of both DLB and AD markers. Given the relatively small sample size, key aspect of the methodological approach is to reduce technical sources of variability. The processing workflow includes rigorous quality control, formatting, normalisation to MNI space, harmonisation (differential smoothing), and MRI‐based segmentation. Result The dataset currently includes amyloid PET scans (acquired using [ 11 C]PiB, [ 18 F]Flutemetamol or [ 18 F]Florbetapir) and MRI scans from ∼130 DLB patients, along with ∼150 AD patients and ∼150 controls. In addition, 99 patients positive for the CSF α‐Synuclein Seeding Amplification Assay were included. Patient data were anonymized, and a harmonised database was created, including demographic characteristics, clinical history, and results from neuropsychological assessments. Conclusion The creation of a standardized, multi‐centre amyloid PET dataset for DLB will enable the study of amyloid PET patterns at the global, regional and voxel level, in comparison with uptake in AD patients and controls. This dataset will serve as a valuable resource for investigating the neuropathological underpinnings of DLB, improving diagnostic accuracy, and potentially guiding patient stratification in anti‐amyloid trials. Efforts to integrate [ 18 F]Florbetaben and additional data are ongoing.

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 Most existing biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) inform on core AD pathologies in the central nervous system, namely amyloid, tau and neurodegeneration (ATN). However, molecular disease mechanisms underlying AD are complex and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for cost‐effective blood‐based biomarkers that reflect brain molecular changes in AD beyond ATN. Method Using peripheral blood transcriptome data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging(MCSA) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, we identified genes associated with AD or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) diagnosis, cognitive, and harmonized neuroimaging measures in two cohorts, followed by meta‐analysis. We identified consensus gene co‐expression modules in MCSA and ADNI using WGCNA and assessed the association between module eigengenes and aforementioned measures. Using seven bulk brain RNAseq cohorts, we confirmed the preservation of coexpression modules across blood and brain. Enrichment analyses of Gene Ontology (GO) terms and cell‐types were performed using significant and/or hub genes. The MCSA transcriptome was further deconvoluted to obtain cell‐type proportions and cell‐type specific expression. Result Blood transcriptome modules M5 and M8 are upregulated in AD/MCI and associate with worse cognition, whereas M1, M10, M13, M16, and M21 are downregulated in AD/MCI and associate with better cognition. M17 associates with more microhemorrhages. Cell‐type enrichment analysis revealed that M5 is enriched in basophils, monocytes, and neutrophils; M8 in monocytes and neutrophils; M13 in natural kills cells; M17 in megakaryocytes; M21 in B cells. GO analysis shows broad consistency with the cell‐type enrichment analysis. M1, 5, and 8 are preserved in the brain network modules. From these modules, we prioritized transcripts significantly associated with at least one AD‐related phenotype in both blood and brain. Cell‐type deconvolution analysis shows that prioritized transcripts in M1 associate with better cognition and higher metabolic activity in B cells. Conclusion We identified blood transcripts and modules associated with AD/MCI, cognition, or neuroimaging, with three preserved in brain networks. These three modules represent centrally linked peripheral molecular signatures that can reveal perturbed brain pathways and cell level transcriptional changes in AD/MCI. We aim to further investigate the prioritized transcripts in additional datasets to establish them as potential novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Abstract Background Neuroimaging data typically arrives as Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files, batched by exam. We use exam or study to denote a single imaging session of a participant, containing up to ∼40 series (the generic term for scans and derived products). Different series have different properties and applications, making their labeling complex. Filenames often change in transit, and Series Description tags (0008, 103E) are arbitrary, operator‐entered, and unreliably coupled to the series type. Furthermore, label preferences vary from site to site, making the application of a common classification system mandatory for multisite studies. Here we describe the system that we have developed and applied to the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and SCAN. Method Although Series Description is unreliable, DICOM includes other tags that parameterize MR pulse sequences and suggest their purpose. The mapping from these features to types is difficult to explicitly specify, especially since different manufacturers and protocols use different conventions. Thus we developed a machine learning classifier using 4060 semiautomatically labeled head and spinal series from 1.5 to 7T MR scanners, including both site‐specific and standard protocols designed to study a wide range of neurological conditions, including dementia, hydrocephalus, and multiple sclerosis. An 80%/20% split, stratified by type, was used for the training/test sets. After initial training, a few cases in the training set with high errors due to rarity were augmented and the model retrained. Performance was evaluated on the clean test set. Result The taxonomy is presented in Table 1. The classifier correctly identified 807 out of 812 (99.4%) series, with the error cases coming from outside the ADNI or SCAN protocols (Table 2). The confusion matrix is shown in Figure 1. Conclusion We implemented an automatic series type classifier with labels chosen to be generally useful for the brain MRI community. Some errors were noted, but the test set was deliberately challenging and the errors appear to be ones that could easily be made by a human. The classifier is expected to have good tolerance for as yet unseen head MR protocols but is likely unsatisfactory for body MRI.