Amyloid-PET pipeline choice influences classification of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Quantitative amyloid-beta (Aβ)-PET is increasingly used in AD prevention trials. Although the Centiloid (CL) framework provides a common scale, variability persists across processing pipelines, including differences in template/native space, partial volume correction (PVC), and reference region. These choices may influence cut-points, and in turn positivity rates, as well as longitudinal accumulation rates. We examined cut-point estimates and inter-pipeline discordance in a community cohort where many are expected to have early Aβ deposition.

METHODS

We analysed [¹⁸F]florbetapir PET/MR data from predominantly cognitively unimpaired (∼95%) individuals aged ∼71 years at baseline (n=433) and at follow-up (n=328; ∼2.4-year interval) in Insight 46 (1946 British birth cohort). Centiloids were derived using the standard pipeline and ten in-house pipelines employing alternative reference regions and PVC in native space. Gaussian mixture modelling estimated cut-points with bootstrapped uncertainty. We assessed Aβ-discordance across pipelines as a function of standard CLs and examined follow-up CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 (n=120) and PET in individuals with discordant baseline classifications.

RESULTS

Baseline cut-points were 10–23 CL across pipelines, classifying 16–25% as Aβ-positive. Reliable accumulation cut-points were 3.5–6 CL/year, identifying 16– 22% as accumulators. Uncertainty varied across pipelines. At baseline, 18% were discordant across PET measures, predominantly between 11–35 standard CLs. The discordant group showed higher Aβ-PET accumulation and lower CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 than concordant negatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Disagreement between Aβ-PET methods was highest between 11–35 standard Centiloids and was frequently associated with accumulating Aβ. These findings highlight the importance of considering cut-point uncertainty and methodological influences when interpreting early-stage amyloidosis.

Highlights

  • Processing methods significantly influence amyloid PET Centiloid estimates

  • Amyloid positivity thresholds and varied across commonly used PET methods

  • PET discordance was greatest within an intermediate range between 11–35 Centiloids

  • Future CSF and longitudinal PET suggest PET discordance frequently reflects early amyloidosis

Article activity feed