Back

Characterisation of Posterior Predominant Amyloid PET Binding Across Multiple Cohorts

Giorgio, J.; Blazhenets, G.; Landau, S.; Pezzoli, S.; Yokoyama, J. S.; Soleimani-Meigooni, D.; Carrillo, M.; Grinberg, L.; Seeley, W. W. T.; Spina, S.; Nudelman, K.; Apostolova, L.; Dickerson, B.; Jagust, W. J.; Rabinovici, G.; La Joie, R.

2026-06-23 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.06.17.733031 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The standard approach to quantify amyloid (A{beta}) PET averages uptake within a single cortical mask that assumes no clinically relevant spatial heterogeneity in uptake patterns. Here, in a sample of 12,379 clinically impaired participants taken from four phenotypically diverse cohorts we use data-driven approaches to discover heterogeneous patterns of A{beta}-PET binding, uncovering a reproducible and clinically relevant pattern of posterior predominant A{beta}-PET binding. In particular, A{beta}-PET positive participants who have posterior predominant binding are less likely to be APOE-{varepsilon}4 carriers, more severely impaired, have thinner cortex in posterior regions, and greater posterior tau PET burden. Furthermore, in a subsample of participants with neuropathological assessment, participants with posterior predominant A{beta} binding have a higher likelihood of having cerebral amyloid angiopathy at autopsy. These findings suggest that A{beta}-PET accumulates along two orthogonal axes with biological and clinical relevance, indicating that the standard approach to assess A{beta}-PET is insufficient to capture meaningful signal from A{beta}-PET imaging. This work has implications for the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimers disease and extends our understanding of the mechanisms governing variable A{beta}-PET distribution and its downstream effects.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.