Back to Search Start Over

Selecting software pipelines for change in flortaucipir SUVR: Balancing repeatability and group separation

Authors :
Scott A. Przybelski
Hugo Botha
Val J. Lowe
Keith A. Josephs
Christopher G. Schwarz
Jennifer L. Whitwell
Ronald C. Petersen
Prashanthi Vemuri
Terry M. Therneau
Kejal Kantarci
Matthew L. Senjem
Clifford R. Jack
Bradley F. Boeve
Stephen D. Weigand
Jeffrey L. Gunter
David S. Knopman
Source :
NeuroImage, Vol 238, Iss, Pp 118259-(2021), NeuroImage
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
Elsevier BV, 2021.

Abstract

Since tau PET tracers were introduced, investigators have quantified them using a wide variety of automated methods. As longitudinal cohort studies acquire second and third time points of serial within-person tau PET data, determining the best pipeline to measure change has become crucial. We compared a total of 415 different quantification methods (each a combination of multiple options) according to their effects on a) differences in annual SUVR change between clinical groups, and b) longitudinal measurement repeatability as measured by the error term from a linear mixed-effects model. Our comparisons used MRI and Flortaucipir scans of 97 Mayo Clinic study participants who clinically either: a) were cognitively unimpaired, or b) had cognitive impairments that were consistent with Alzheimer's disease pathology. Tested methods included cross-sectional and longitudinal variants of two overarching pipelines (FreeSurfer 6.0, and an in-house pipeline based on SPM12), three choices of target region (entorhinal, inferior temporal, and a temporal lobe meta-ROI), five types of partial volume correction (PVC) (none, two-compartment, three-compartment, geometric transfer matrix (GTM), and a tau-specific GTM variant), seven choices of reference region (cerebellar crus, cerebellar gray matter, whole cerebellum, pons, supratentorial white matter, eroded supratentorial WM, and a composite of eroded supratentorial WM, pons, and whole cerebellum), two choices of region masking (GM or GM and WM), and two choices of statistic (voxel-wise mean vs. median). Our strongest findings were: 1) larger temporal-lobe target regions greatly outperformed entorhinal cortex (median sample size estimates based on a hypothetical clinical trial were 520–526 vs. 1740); 2) longitudinal processing pipelines outperformed cross-sectional pipelines (median sample size estimates were 483 vs. 572); and 3) reference regions including supratentorial WM outperformed traditional cerebellar and pontine options (median sample size estimates were 370 vs. 559). Altogether, our results favored longitudinally SUVR methods and a temporal-lobe meta-ROI that includes adjacent (juxtacortical) WM, a composite reference region (eroded supratentorial WM + pons + whole cerebellum), 2-class voxel-based PVC, and median statistics.

Details

ISSN :
10538119
Volume :
238
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
NeuroImage
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....32dd6b5ea8dda19b4401be263247820e