Biomarkers Neuro-Dementia

The co-authors who collaborated in drafting the Neuro-dementia table:
Castellano Antonella, Calloni Sonia Francesca, Georgiopoulos Charalampos, Vernooij Meike, on behalf of ESNR Diagnostic Committee and ESR EIBALL Subcommittee

EIBALL-ESNR Biomarker Inventory for Dementia

Release: April 2025

Biomarker (Name)

Unit of Measurement

Acquisition Modality

Data acquisition requirements

Extracting biomarker
(Reading/
Algorithm)

Pathophysiological process

Use of biomarker: Diagnosis

Use of biomarker: Prediction

Accuracy/Agreement

Evidence level

References

Issues/
limitations

Cortical atrophy (N)

Semi-quantitative scale

CT

MRI (T1w or FLAIR)

Volumetric acquisitions for MPR reconstruction

Global cortical atrophy (a.k.a. Pasquier or GCA score, 0-3):

- Extensive or simplified version.

- Assessment on multiplanar images

Parietal atrophy (a.k.a. Koedam score, 0-3):

- Assessment of the parietal lobe in three planes

Cortical atrophy

- Semi-quantitative, ordinal scale

- Do not require specialist software or expertise

- Quick to apply

- Widely adopted (especially simplified GCA)

- Proven good correlation with volumetric and post-mortem information

- patterns of cerebral atrophy can point towards a specific underlying diagnosis (etiologic diagnosis)

 

AUC for distinguishing each pathological group from controls ranges from 0.86–0.97; from one another, 0.75–0.92

2a

(Pasquier et al., 1996) Original publication (GCA)

(Koedam et al., 2011) Original publication (Koedam)

(Harper et al., 2015) Review

(Wahlund et al., 2017) Pictorial review

(Harper et al., 2016; Harper et al., 2017) Original publication

[55, 42, 83, 32-34!]

- Sensitivity in prodromal dementia is limited

- Moderate to substantial intra- and interrater agreement

Medial temporal lobe atrophy (N)

Semi-quantitative scale

CT

MRI (T1w)

Acquisition in coronal plane perpendicular to long axis of hippocampus; or volumetric acquisitions for MPR reconstruction along same axis

Visual assessment on coronal images (a.k.a. Scheltens scale or MTA scale, 0-4):

- width of the choroid fissure

- width of temporal horn

- height of hippocampus

Hippocampal atrophy

- Semi-quantitative, ordinal scale

- Do not require specialist software or expertise

- Quick to apply

- Widely adopted

- Discrimination between AD and controls and between AD and non-AD dementia.

Atrophy has been shown to correlate with likelihood of progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia

Sensitivity of ~75% and specificity of ~85% to discriminate Alzheimer disease from healthy controls

2a

(Scheltens et al., 1992) Original publication

(Ten Kate et al., 2017) Clinical validity

(Hakansson et al., 2022; Håkansson et al., 2022) Variability

(Wahlund et al., 2017) Pictorial review

[66, 77, 30-31, 83!]

- Early detection ability

- Adequate intra- and interrater variability

- the exact cut-off has limited value above the age of 85. Also, gender and age can be confounders to the score

Entorhinal cortex atrophy (N)

Semi-quantitative scale

MRI (T1w)

Volumetric acquisitions for MPR reconstruction

Assessment on coronal sections at the level of the mammillary bodies (a.k.a. ERICA score)

Entorhinal cortical atrophy

- Entorhinal atrophy precedes hippocampal atrophy, with potential for earlier/more accurate AD diagnosis

- Promising results in discriminating MCI from AD

Discrimination between MCI and SCD; possible prediction in converting to Alzheimer

Higher diagnostic accuracy (91%) than the MTA score (74%), with a sensitivity of 83% versus 57% and a specificity of 98% versus 92% in discriminating dementia caused by AD from SCD

MCI and AD dementia (area under the curve: 0.71) was comparable to volumetry, and superior to the medial temporal lobe

atrophy (MTA) score (p = 0.006

2a

(Enkirch et al., 2018) Original publication

(Roberge et al., 2023) Study on disease conversion

[21, 61!]

- Relatively recent score, so far fewer evidence than MTA, in need of more confirmation/ validation studies

- Intra- and interrater agreement has not been assessed

- Not validated in the broader spectrum of dementia

Volumetry (N)

mm3

MRI (T1w)

Volumetric acquisitions

Quantification of brain volume (and lobar or other subregional volumes) based on 3D T1-weighted images, often adjusted for head size and converted to percentile scores compared to age- and sex-specific reference population

Cortical atrophy

- Quantitative

- Several products are commercially available

- Allows the detection of distinct patterns of volume loss, against background of normal ageing

- There are initial reports demonstrating supportive role in diagnostic interpretation

- Earlier detection of atrophy and more sensitive to longitudinal change

 

Several most recent studies show that volumetry software may increase diagnostic accuracy when compared to visual assessment of cortical atrophy evaluation

2b

(Harper et al., 2017) Patterns of atrophy

(Pemberton et al., 2021b) Review on validation

(Pemberton et al., 2021a) Interpretation

(Vernooij et al., 2019) ESNR survey

[33, 56-57, 81!]


(Calloni et al., 2023; Pemberton et al., 2021a; Pemberton et al., 2021b; Poos et al., 2022) Volumetry software

[12, 56-57, 59!]

- Significant evidence gap regarding clinical validation, workflow integration and in-use evaluation

- Not widely used

- Inhomogeneity of results among different software (Zaki 2022)

Vascular burden (N)

Semi-quantitative scale

MRI (FLAIR)

Volumetric acquisitions

Assessment of FLAIR-weighted images for white matter hyperintensities with the Fazekas (or ARWMC) score

Microvascular lesions

- Assessment of vascular pathology as potential explanation of cognitive impairment (etiologic diagnosis)

- Semi-quantitative, ordinal scale

- Do not require specialist software or expertise

- Quick to apply

- Widely adopted

- Very good intra- and interrater agreement

Prediction of cognitive decline, especially for highest grade

N/A

2a

(Fazekas et al., 1987) Original publication (Fazekas)

(Wahlund et al., 2001) ARWMC

(Boutet et al., 2016) Agreement

(Jokinen et al., 2011) LADIS study

(Wardlaw et al., 2013) Neuroimaging standards on small vessel disease

[22, 82, 7, 38, 85!]

- Subjective

- Not sensitive to small change

- No clear link to symptoms/patient outcomes

- No normative reference data available

Microbleeds (X)

Semi-quantitative scale

MRI
Susceptibility Weighted Imaging (SWI) or T2*GRE

Comparable sequence available from all major vendors, ~5 mins

Visual assessment of Susceptibility Weighted Imaging (SWI) or T2*GRE

Detection of superficial siderosis & microbleeds

- Detection of superficial siderosis & microbleeds

- Boston 2.0 criteria

- Do not require specialist software

- Quick to apply

- Widely adopted

- Predict stroke-related mortality in AD patients

- predict higher cognitive decline

N/A

2b

(Wheeler et al., 2024) Review

(Charidimou et al., 2022) Boston 2.0

(Switzer et al., 2024) Accuracy

[86, 15, 73!]

Sensitivity of detection dependent on techniques (field strength, echo time SWI versus T2*GRE)

Iron deposition (N)

Dimensionless ratio; parts per million (ppm) relative to the external magnetic field strength (B0​)

MRI (SWI)

Comparable sequence available from all major vendors, ~5 mins

Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM)

Detection of early pathological changes and iron deposition

- Quantitative

- Detects early pathological changes and iron deposition, as early differentiation between AD and LBD

- Emerging promising tool

- effective performance of the subject group classification and prediction for aMCI stage

- can predict cognitive decline in patients with early stage

AD

- monitoring the progression of neurodegenerative diseases

N/A

2b

(Suresh Paul et al., 2024) Review focused on dementia

(Haacke et al., 2015) Overview of QSM

[72, 28!]

- No standardized processing techniques

- Limited reproducibility & reliability for the time being

WM microstructure (N)

mm2/s (MD), value range 0-1 (FA)

MRI

Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI)

Comparable sequence available from all major vendors, 5-15 mins, minimum 6 directions

ROI or VOI or
Whole-brain analysis (TBSS)

Detection of white matter integrity, structural connectivity

- Quantitative

- Detects early regional microstructural changes as early differentiation between MCI and AD

- DTI revealed subtle WM alterations in subjective cognitive decline that were intermediate between those in MCI and healthy controls

- May be useful to detect individuals with an increased risk for AD

N/A

3b

(Clerx et al., 2012; Teipel et al., 2012; Brueggen et al., 2017; Brueggen et al., 2019; Qin et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023)

[17, 9-10, 60, 44!]

- No clinical validation

- Mostly used in the context of research, group-wise comparisons

- Often studies with relatively small, single-center sample

Connectivity (N)

a.u

MRI

Resting-state fMRI (rs-fMRI)

3T preferred for optimal signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and spatial resolution

TR of 0.5 to 3 seconds is typical, with TR < 1 second being ideal for capturing faster fluctuations in BOLD signals.

5-10 mins acquisition is usually the minimum recommended for reliable connectivity analyses (10-15 mins preferred to improve robustness/
reproducibility

Patients are typically instructed to keep their eyes closed and to maintain a relaxed state without engaging in specific tasks

ROI or VOI

Detection of functional connectivity of hippocampus and other limbic regions

- In AD, several resting-state fMRI studies revealed altered connectivity in the default mode network

- highly connected hub regions in the brain might be an early target of AD

N/A

3b

(Teipel et al., 2015) Review

(Young et al., 2020) Overview on current & future directions

[76, 89!]

- No clinical validation

- Mostly used in the context of research, group-wise comparisons

- Often studies with relatively small, single-center sample

Perfusion (X)

ml/min/100ml (CBF units)

MRI
Arterial spin Labeling (ASL)

Comparable sequence available from all major vendors (~4 min).

Additional calibration scan is required (<30sec)

Quantification of cerebral blood flow (CBF) using a kinetic model derived from arterial spin labeling (ASL) and calibration data

Regional brain perfusion differences

- Pattern of (hypo)perfusion may indicate early degenerative change and point towards etiologic diagnosis

- Thought to provide comparable information to FDG-PET

- Enables absolute quantification of CBF

- No use of exogenous tracer

Regional hyperperfusion reported in MCI, AD,frontotemporal dementia

Lower accuracy compared to FDG-PET

-sensitivity: 77–84%;specificity: 69–81%; AUC: 0.83–0.89 in differentiating patients with AD from HC subjects or SCD

-sensitivity = 79%; specificity = 76%; AUC = 0.78 in differentiating patients with FTLD from HC subjects

3b

(Alsop et al., 2015) Review

(Ferreira and Bastos-Leite, 2024) Consensus paper

(Haidar et al., 2023) Meta-analysis

[1, 23, 29!]

- Literature is still discordant, but ASL seems to have lower temporal resolution compared to FDG-PET

FDG PET (N)

SUVr

18F deoxy-glucose PET

PET

10-20 min static imaging, 45 min p.i.

Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) should be removed

i.v. placement for radiotracer administration

VOI-based analysis

Automated quantification

Measure of regional glucose metabolism (combination of neuronal/synaptic activity and astrocytic activity and neuroinflammation)

Largest availability compared to other quantitative PET

Patterns of reduction in metabolism are presumed to reflect early changes due to neurodegeneration and can point to etiologic diagnosis.

In core clinical criteria for bvFTD: Required to take a bvFTD diagnosis from “possible” to “probable

Specific pattern for MAPT or P301L mutations

Diminished FDG uptake precedes symptoms

Differences in metabolism patterns may predict AD conversion

FTD: Diminished FDG uptake during follow-ups

High accuracy: >90% sensitivity and 63–99% specificity compared with histopathological diagnosis

3a

General: (Frisoni et al., 2024; Boccardi et al., 2018

[25,6!]


AD: (Smailagic et al., 2015; Daulatzai, 2017; Iaccarino et al., 2017; Whitwell et al., 2017; Anazodo et al., 2018; Arbizu et al., 2018; Drzezga et al., 2018; Henriques et al., 2018; Nestor et al., 2018; Sprinz et al., 2018; Massa et al., 2019; Santangelo et al., 2020; Teng et al., 2020)

[68,18, 36, 87, 3-4!, 20, 35, 51, 70, 48!, 65, 78!]


FTD: (Buhour et al., 2017; Krudop et al., 2017; Bejanin et al., 2020; Ward et al., 2023)

[25,6!]

AD:

- Expensive

- Invasive due to the injection of radiolabeled tracer

- False positives caused by other diseases and medication use

- Radiation Burden

FTD:

- Misclassification due to psychiatric illness

Amyloid deposition (A)

SUV

Centiloid (CL) scale

reference-based z-scores

Aβ load

Aβ index AMYQ)

PET (11C: Pittsburg compound B; 18F: flutemetamol, florbetapir and florbetaben)

PET

Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) should be removed

i.v. placement for radiotracer administration

VOI-based analysis

Automated quantification

18F-labeled radiotracers have a longer physical half-life and match the spreading patterns of Ab plaques

In vivo AD pathology marker

Negative amyloid PET rules out AD

11C retention able to predict MCI to AD conversion

High accuracy

88%–98% sensitivity and 80%–95% specificity in distinguishing older adults with moderate to frequent neuritic plaques (according to the CERAD scale) from those with absent to sparse plaques

3b

AD: (Wolk et al., 2012; Rowe et al., 2013; Vandenberghe et al., 2013; Klunk et al., 2015; Grothe et al., 2017; Altomare et al., 2018; Suppiah et al., 2019; Young et al., 2020; Chapleau et al., 2022)

[88, 62, 80, 41, 27, 2!,71, 89, 14!]

FTD: (Tan et al., 2017; De Leon et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2020)

[74, 19, 67!]

- Lower specificity: Amyloid can coexist also in ageing and in other neurodegenerative pathologies, e.g. in LBD or FTD

- Elevated 11C also found in healthy controls

- No overlap with (N) brain regions

- Variance (centiloid scale)

- Off target binding for 18F

- Cost and availability

- Radiation burden

- No correlation with disease severity

Tau deposition (T)

SUV

18F-fortaucipir (FDA approved)

4 main categories of tracers

18F-FDDNP

Quinoline Derivates

Pyrido-indole derivates

PBB3

PET

Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) should be removed

i.v. placement for radiotracer administration

VOI-based analysis

Automated quantification

Relationship between neurodegeneration and neurofibrillary pathology

Potentially capable of providing the “T” biomarker information

High specificity: able to “rule in” AD based on positive tau PET

flortaucipir-PET is elevated in some patients with specific MAPT mutations

AD pathology marker Semi-quantitative

Overlaps with (N) regions of atrophy and reduced glucose metabolism

Tau accumulation believed to be related to cognitive impairment

Able to separate FTD from CBD and PSP?

High accuracy to predict the subset of Aβ(+) individuals that will show AD-relevant cognitive decline

Superior to amyloid PET in explaining cognitive changes

3b

AD: (Braak and Braak, 1991; Okamura et al., 2013; Cho et al., 2016; Ossenkoppele et al., 2016; Saint-Aubert et al., 2017; Klunk, 2018; Mattsson et al., 2018; Ossenkoppele et al., 2018; Villemagne et al., 2018; Pontecorvo et al., 2019; Young et al., 2020; Ioannou et al., 2024)

[8, 52, 16, 54, 63, 40!, 49, 53, 92, 58, 89!, 37!]

 

FTD: (Jones et al., 2018; Ghirelli et al., 2020; Lowe et al., 2020; Soleimani-Meigooni et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2022)

[39, 26, 45, 69, 79!]

AD:

- Low affinity for straight ligaments

- Cost and availability

- Radiation burden

- tracer binding in most non-AD tauopathies is weaker and overlaps to a large extent with known off-target binding regions, limiting the quantification and visualization of non-AD tau pathology in vivo

- Need for validation

FTD:

- Sensitivity is limited to early stages

- Non-specific binding

- Results of its utility in different subtypes are discordant

Synaptic density (N)

a.u.

11C UCB-J (SV2A)

18F-UCB-H

18F-flortaucipir

PET

Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) should be removed

i.v. placement for radiotracer administration

Voxel-wise and region of interest (ROI) analysis

Radioligands with high affinity and selectivity for synaptic vesicle protein 2A (SV2A), which is the only of three isoforms that is ubiquitously expressed in synapses across the brain.

Hippocampal uptake correlates with memory

Decrease cortical and amygdala/hippocampal uptake in AD patients.

Early indicator of brain dysfunction in AD compared to volume loss.

11C-UCB-J uptake was detected in the thalamus of three presymptomatic C9orf72 carriers: early diagnosis?

Potential correlation with therapy

N/A

3b

AD: (Zheng et al., 2014; Finnema et al., 2018; Carson et al., 2022; Mecca et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2023)

[91, 24, 13, 50, 90!]


FTD: (Malpetti et al., 2021; Salmon et al., 2021; Malpetti et al., 2023)

[46, 64, 47!]

- 11C short half life

- Cost and availability

- Radiation burden

- Contradictory results

- AD: 11C-UCB-J PET binding in neocortical areas less pronounced than the changes detected by 18F-FDG e tau-PET

* Class: A for amyloid, T for tau, N for neurodegeneration, X for other

  1. Alsop DC, Detre JA, Golay X, Günther M, Hendrikse J, Hernandez-Garcia L, et al. Recommended implementation of arterial spin-labeled perfusion MRI for clinical applications: A consensus of the ISMRM perfusion study group and the European consortium for ASL in dementia. Magn Reson Med 2015; 73(1): 102-16.
  2. Altomare D, Ferrari C, Festari C, Guerra UP, Muscio C, Padovani A, et al. Quantitative appraisal of the Amyloid Imaging Taskforce appropriate use criteria for amyloid-PET. Alzheimers Dement 2018; 14(8): 1088-98.
  3. Anazodo UC, Finger E, Kwan BYM, Pavlosky W, Warrington JC, Günther M, et al. Using simultaneous PET/MRI to compare the accuracy of diagnosing frontotemporal dementia by arterial spin labelling MRI and FDG-PET. Neuroimage Clin 2018; 17: 405-14.
  4. Arbizu J, Festari C, Altomare D, Walker Z, Bouwman F, Rivolta J, et al. Clinical utility of FDG-PET for the clinical diagnosis in MCI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45(9): 1497-508.
  5. Bejanin A, Tammewar G, Marx G, Cobigo Y, Iaccarino L, Kornak J, et al. Longitudinal structural and metabolic changes in frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 2020; 95(2): e140-e54.
  6. Boccardi M, Festari C, Altomare D, Gandolfo F, Orini S, Nobili F, et al. Assessing FDG-PET diagnostic accuracy studies to develop recommendations for clinical use in dementia. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45(9): 1470-86.
  7. Boutet C, Rouffiange-Leclair L, Schneider F, Camdessanche JP, Antoine JC, Barral FG. Visual Assessment of Age-Related White Matter Hyperintensities Using FLAIR Images at 3 T: Inter- and Intra-Rater Agreement. Neurodegener Dis 2016; 16(3-4): 279-83.
  8. Braak H, Braak E. Neuropathological stageing of Alzheimer-related changes. Acta Neuropathol 1991; 82(4): 239-59.
  9. Brueggen K, Grothe MJ, Dyrba M, Fellgiebel A, Fischer F, Filippi M, et al. The European DTI Study on Dementia – A multicenter DTI and MRI study on Alzheimer’s disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment. Neuroimage 2017; 144(Pt B): 305-8.
  10. Brueggen K, Dyrba M, Cardenas-Blanco A, Schneider A, Fliessbach K, Buerger K, et al. Structural integrity in subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease based on multicenter diffusion tensor imaging. J Neurol 2019; 266(10): 2465-74.
  11. Buhour MS, Doidy F, Laisney M, Pitel AL, de La Sayette V, Viader F, et al. Pathophysiology of the behavioral variant of frontotemporal lobar degeneration: A study combining MRI and FDG-PET. Brain Imaging Behav 2017; 11(1): 240-52.
  12. Calloni SF, Vezzulli PQ, Castellano A, et al. Combining semi-quantitative rating and automated brain volumetry in MRI evaluation of patients with probable behavioural variant of fronto-temporal dementia: an added value for clinical practise? Neuroradiology. 2023 Jun;65(6):1025-1035
  13. Carson RE, Naganawa M, Toyonaga T, Koohsari S, Yang Y, Chen MK, et al. Imaging of Synaptic Density in Neurodegenerative Disorders. J Nucl Med 2022; 63(Suppl 1): 60s-7s.
  14. Chapleau M, Iaccarino L, Soleimani-Meigooni D, Rabinovici GD. The Role of Amyloid PET in Imaging Neurodegenerative Disorders: A Review. J Nucl Med 2022; 63(Suppl 1): 13s-9s.
  15. Charidimou A, Boulouis G, Frosch MP, Baron JC, Pasi M, Albucher JF, et al. The Boston criteria version 2.0 for cerebral amyloid angiopathy: a multicentre, retrospective, MRI-neuropathology diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Neurol 2022; 21(8): 714-25.
  16. Cho H, Choi JY, Hwang MS, Kim YJ, Lee HM, Lee HS, et al. In vivo cortical spreading pattern of tau and amyloid in the Alzheimer disease spectrum. Ann Neurol 2016; 80(2): 247-58.
  17. Clerx L, Visser PJ, Verhey F, Aalten P. New MRI markers for Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis of diffusion tensor imaging and a comparison with medial temporal lobe measurements. J Alzheimers Dis 2012; 29(2): 405-29.
  18. Daulatzai MA. Cerebral hypoperfusion and glucose hypometabolism: Key pathophysiological modulators promote neurodegeneration, cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurosci Res 2017; 95(4): 943-72.
  19. De Leon J, Mandelli ML, Nolan A, Miller ZA, Mead C, Watson C, et al. Atypical clinical features associated with mixed pathology in a case of non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia. Neurocase 2019; 25(1-2): 39-47.
  20. Drzezga A, Altomare D, Festari C, Arbizu J, Orini S, Herholz K, et al. Diagnostic utility of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in asymptomatic subjects at increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45(9): 1487-96.
  21. Enkirch SJ, Traschutz A, Muller A, Widmann CN, Gielen GH, Heneka MT, et al. The ERICA Score: An MR Imaging-based Visual Scoring System for the Assessment of Entorhinal Cortex Atrophy in Alzheimer Disease. Radiology 2018; 288(1): 226-333.
  22. Fazekas F, Chawluk JB, Alavi A, Hurtig HI, Zimmerman RA. MR signal abnormalities at 1.5 T in Alzheimer’s dementia and normal aging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987; 149(2): 351-6.
  23. Ferreira R, Bastos-Leite AJ. Arterial spin labelling magnetic resonance imaging and perfusion patterns in neurocognitive and other mental disorders: a systematic review. Neuroradiology 2024; 66(7): 1065-81.
  24. Finnema SJ, Nabulsi NB, Mercier J, Lin SF, Chen MK, Matuskey D, et al. Kinetic evaluation and test-retest reproducibility of [(11)C]UCB-J, a novel radioligand for positron emission tomography imaging of synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A in humans. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2018; 38(11): 2041-52.
  25. Frisoni GB, Festari C, Massa F, Cotta Ramusino M, Orini S, Aarsland D, et al. European intersocietal recommendations for the biomarker-based diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders. Lancet Neurol 2024; 23(3): 302-12.
  26. Ghirelli A, Tosakulwong N, Weigand SD, Clark HM, Ali F, Botha H, et al. Sensitivity-Specificity of Tau and Amyloid β Positron Emission Tomography in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration. Ann Neurol 2020; 88(5): 1009-22.
  27. Grothe MJ, Barthel H, Sepulcre J, Dyrba M, Sabri O, Teipel SJ. In vivo staging of regional amyloid deposition. Neurology 2017; 89(20): 2031-8.
  28. Haacke EM, Liu S, Buch S, Zheng W, Wu D, Ye Y. Quantitative susceptibility mapping: current status and future directions. Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 33(1): 1-25.
  29. Haidar H, Majzoub RE, Hajeer S, Abbas LA. Arterial spin labeling (ASL-MRI) versus fluorodeoxyglucose-PET (FDG-PET) in diagnosing dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurol 2023; 23(1): 385.
  30. Hakansson C, Tamaddon A, Andersson H, Torisson G, Martensson G, Truong M, et al. Inter-modality assessment of medial temporal lobe atrophy in a non-demented population: application of a visual rating scale template across radiologists with varying clinical experience. Eur Radiol 2022; 32(2): 1127-34.
  31. Håkansson C, Tamaddon A, Andersson H, Torisson G, Mårtensson G, Truong M, et al. Inter-modality assessment of medial temporal lobe atrophy in a non-demented population: application of a visual rating scale template across radiologists with varying clinical experience. Eur Radiol 2022; 32(2): 1127-34.
  32. Harper L, Barkhof F, Fox NC, Schott JM. Using visual rating to diagnose dementia: a critical evaluation of MRI atrophy scales. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015; 86(11): 1225-33.
  33. Harper L, Bouwman F, Burton EJ, Barkhof F, Scheltens P, O’Brien JT, et al. Patterns of atrophy in pathologically confirmed dementias: a voxelwise analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2017; 88(11): 908-16.
  34. Harper L, Fumagalli GG, Barkhof F, Scheltens P, O’Brien JT, Bouwman F, et al. MRI visual rating scales in the diagnosis of dementia: evaluation in 184 post-mortem confirmed cases. Brain 2016; 139(Pt 4): 1211-25.
  35. Henriques AD, Benedet AL, Camargos EF, Rosa-Neto P, Nóbrega OT. Fluid and imaging biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease: Where we stand and where to head to. Exp Gerontol 2018; 107: 169-77.
  36. Iaccarino L, Sala A, Caminiti SP, Perani D. The emerging role of PET imaging in dementia. F1000Res 2017; 6: 1830.
  37. Ioannou K, Bucci M, Tzortzakakis A, Savitcheva I, Nordberg A, Chiotis K. Tau PET positivity predicts clinically relevant cognitive decline driven by Alzheimer’s disease compared to comorbid cases; proof of concept in the ADNI study. Mol Psychiatry 2024.
  38. Jokinen H, Gouw AA, Madureira S, Ylikoski R, van Straaten EC, van der Flier WM, et al. Incident lacunes influence cognitive decline: the LADIS study. Neurology 2011; 76(22): 1872-8.
  39. Jones DT, Knopman DS, Graff-Radford J, Syrjanen JA, Senjem ML, Schwarz CG, et al. In vivo (18)F-AV-1451 tau PET signal in MAPT mutation carriers varies by expected tau isoforms. Neurology 2018; 90(11): e947-e54.
  40. Klunk WE. Molecular imaging: What is right and what is an illusion? Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2018; 10: 217-20.
  41. Klunk WE, Koeppe RA, Price JC, Benzinger TL, Devous MD, Sr., Jagust WJ, et al. The Centiloid Project: standardizing quantitative amyloid plaque estimation by PET. Alzheimers Dement 2015; 11(1): 1-15.e1-4.
  42. Koedam EL, Lehmann M, van der Flier WM, Scheltens P, Pijnenburg YA, Fox N, et al. Visual assessment of posterior atrophy development of a MRI rating scale. Eur Radiol 2011; 21(12): 2618-25.
  43. Krudop WA, Dols A, Kerssens CJ, Eikelenboom P, Prins ND, Möller C, et al. The Pitfall of Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia Mimics Despite Multidisciplinary Application of the FTDC Criteria. J Alzheimers Dis 2017; 60(3): 959-75.
  44. Li L, Yang W, Wan Y, Shen H, Wang T, Ping L, et al. White matter alterations in mild cognitive impairment revealed by meta-analysis of diffusion tensor imaging using tract-based spatial statistics. Brain Imaging Behav 2023; 17(6): 639-51.
  45. Lowe VJ, Lundt ES, Albertson SM, Min HK, Fang P, Przybelski SA, et al. Tau-positron emission tomography correlates with neuropathology findings. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16(3): 561-71.
  46. Malpetti M, Holland N, Jones PS, Ye R, Cope TE, Fryer TD, et al. Synaptic density in carriers of C9orf72 mutations: a [(11) C]UCB-J PET study. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2021; 8(7): 1515-23.
  47. Malpetti M, Jones PS, Cope TE, Holland N, Naessens M, Rouse MA, et al. Synaptic Loss in Frontotemporal Dementia Revealed by [(11) C]UCB-J Positron Emission Tomography. Ann Neurol 2023; 93(1): 142-54.
  48. Massa F, Farotti L, Eusebi P, Capello E, Dottorini ME, Tranfaglia C, et al. Reciprocal Incremental Value of 18F-FDG-PET and Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers in Mild Cognitive Impairment Patients Suspected for Alzheimer’s Disease and Inconclusive First Biomarker. J Alzheimers Dis 2019; 72(4): 1193-207.
  49. Mattsson N, Smith R, Strandberg O, Palmqvist S, Schöll M, Insel PS, et al. Comparing (18)F-AV-1451 with CSF t-tau and p-tau for diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2018; 90(5): e388-e95.
  50. Mecca AP, O’Dell RS, Sharp ES, Banks ER, Bartlett HH, Zhao W, et al. Synaptic density and cognitive performance in Alzheimer’s disease: A PET imaging study with [(11) C]UCB-J. Alzheimers Dement 2022; 18(12): 2527-36.
  51. Nestor PJ, Altomare D, Festari C, Drzezga A, Rivolta J, Walker Z, et al. Clinical utility of FDG-PET for the differential diagnosis among the main forms of dementia. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2018; 45(9): 1509-25.
  52. Okamura N, Furumoto S, Harada R, Tago T, Yoshikawa T, Fodero-Tavoletti M, et al. Novel 18F-labeled arylquinoline derivatives for noninvasive imaging of tau pathology in Alzheimer disease. J Nucl Med 2013; 54(8): 1420-7.
  53. Ossenkoppele R, Rabinovici GD, Smith R, Cho H, Schöll M, Strandberg O, et al. Discriminative Accuracy of [18F]flortaucipir Positron Emission Tomography for Alzheimer Disease vs Other Neurodegenerative Disorders. Jama 2018; 320(11): 1151-62.
  54. Ossenkoppele R, Schonhaut DR, Schöll M, Lockhart SN, Ayakta N, Baker SL, et al. Tau PET patterns mirror clinical and neuroanatomical variability in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 2016; 139(Pt 5): 1551-67.
  55. Pasquier F, Leys D, Weerts JG, Mounier-Vehier F, Barkhof F, Scheltens P. Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of cerebral atrophy assessment on MRI scans with hemispheric infarcts. Eur Neurol 1996; 36(5): 268-72.
  56. Pemberton HG, Goodkin O, Prados F, Das RK, Vos SB, Moggridge J, et al. Automated quantitative MRI volumetry reports support diagnostic interpretation in dementia: a multi-rater, clinical accuracy study. Eur Radiol 2021a; 31(7): 5312-23.
  57. Pemberton HG, Zaki LAM, Goodkin O, Das RK, Steketee RME, Barkhof F, et al. Technical and clinical validation of commercial automated volumetric MRI tools for dementia diagnosis-a systematic review. Neuroradiology 2021b; 63(11): 1773-89.
  58. Pontecorvo MJ, Devous MD, Kennedy I, Navitsky M, Lu M, Galante N, et al. A multicentre longitudinal study of flortaucipir (18F) in normal ageing, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease dementia. Brain 2019; 142(6): 1723-35.
  59. Poos JM, Grandpierre LDM, van der Ende EL, et al. Longitudinal Brain Atrophy Rates in Presymptomatic Carriers of Genetic Frontotemporal Dementia. Neurology. 2022 Dec 12;99(24): e2661-e2671.
  60. Qin L, Guo Z, McClure MA, Mu Q. White matter changes from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis. Acta Neurol Belg 2021; 121(6): 1435-47.
  61. Roberge X, Brisson M, Laforce RJ. Specificity of Entorhinal Atrophy MRI Scale in Predicting Alzheimer’s Disease Conversion. Can J Neurol Sci 2023; 50(1): 112-4.
  62. Rowe CC, Pejoska S, Mulligan RS, Jones G, Chan JG, Svensson S, et al. Head-to-head comparison of 11C-PiB and 18F-AZD4694 (NAV4694) for β-amyloid imaging in aging and dementia. J Nucl Med 2013; 54(6): 880-6.
  63. Saint-Aubert L, Lemoine L, Chiotis K, Leuzy A, Rodriguez-Vieitez E, Nordberg A. Tau PET imaging: present and future directions. Mol Neurodegener 2017; 12(1): 19.
  64. Salmon E, Bahri MA, Plenevaux A, Becker G, Seret A, Delhaye E, et al. In vivo exploration of synaptic projections in frontotemporal dementia. Sci Rep 2021; 11(1): 16092.
  65. Santangelo R, Masserini F, Agosta F, Sala A, Caminiti SP, Cecchetti G, et al. CSF p-tau/Aβ(42) ratio and brain FDG-PET may reliably detect MCI “imminent” converters to AD. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2020; 47(13): 3152-64.
  66. Scheltens P, Leys D, Barkhof F, Huglo D, Weinstein HC, Vermersch P, et al. Atrophy of medial temporal lobes on MRI in “probable” Alzheimer’s disease and normal ageing: diagnostic value and neuropsychological correlates. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992; 55(10): 967-72.
  67. Shi Z, Fu LP, Zhang N, Zhao X, Liu S, Zuo C, et al. Amyloid PET in Dementia Syndromes: A Chinese Multicenter Study. J Nucl Med 2020; 61(12): 1814-9.
  68. Smailagic N, Vacante M, Hyde C, Martin S, Ukoumunne O, Sachpekidis C. ¹⁸F-FDG PET for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease dementia and other dementias in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 1(1): Cd010632.
  69. Soleimani-Meigooni DN, Iaccarino L, La Joie R, Baker S, Bourakova V, Boxer AL, et al. 18F-flortaucipir PET to autopsy comparisons in Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. Brain 2020; 143(11): 3477-94.
  70. Sprinz C, Altmayer S, Zanon M, Watte G, Irion K, Marchiori E, et al. Effects of blood glucose level on 18F-FDG uptake for PET/CT in normal organs: A systematic review. PLoS One 2018; 13(2): e0193140.
  71. Suppiah S, Didier MA, Vinjamuri S. The Who, When, Why, and How of PET Amyloid Imaging in Management of Alzheimer’s Disease-Review of Literature and Interesting Images. Diagnostics (Basel) 2019; 9(2).
  72. Suresh Paul J, T AR, Raghavan S, Kesavadas C. Comparative analysis of quantitative susceptibility mapping in preclinical dementia detection. Eur J Radiol 2024; 178: 111598.
  73. Switzer AR, Charidimou A, McCarter S, Vemuri P, Nguyen AT, Przybelski SA, et al. Boston Criteria v2.0 for Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy Without Hemorrhage: An MRI-Neuropathologic Validation Study. Neurology 2024; 102(10): e209386.
  74. Tan RH, Kril JJ, Yang Y, Tom N, Hodges JR, Villemagne VL, et al. Assessment of amyloid β in pathologically confirmed frontotemporal dementia syndromes. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2017; 9: 10-20.
  75. Teipel SJ, Wegrzyn M, Meindl T, Frisoni G, Bokde AL, Fellgiebel A, et al. Anatomical MRI and DTI in the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: a European multicenter study. J Alzheimers Dis 2012; 31 Suppl 3: S33-47.
  76. Teipel S, Drzezga A, Grothe MJ, Barthel H, Chetelat G, Schuff N, et al. Multimodal imaging in Alzheimer’s disease: validity and usefulness for early detection. Lancet Neurol 2015; 14(10): 1037-53.
  77. Ten Kate M, Barkhof F, Boccardi M, Visser PJ, Jack CR, Jr., Lovblad KO, et al. Clinical validity of medial temporal atrophy as a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease in the context of a structured 5-phase development framework. Neurobiol Aging 2017; 52: 167-82 e1.
  78. Teng L, Li Y, Zhao Y, Hu T, Zhang Z, Yao Z, et al. Predicting MCI progression with FDG-PET and cognitive scores: a longitudinal study. BMC Neurol 2020; 20(1): 148.
  79. Tian M, Civelek AC, Carrio I, Watanabe Y, Kang KW, Murakami K, et al. International consensus on the use of tau PET imaging agent (18)F-flortaucipir in Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022; 49(3): 895-904.
  80. Vandenberghe R, Adamczuk K, Dupont P, Laere KV, Chételat G. Amyloid PET in clinical practice: Its place in the multidimensional space of Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage Clin 2013; 2: 497-511.
  81. Vernooij MW, Pizzini FB, Schmidt R, Smits M, Yousry TA, Bargallo N, et al. Dementia imaging in clinical practice: a European-wide survey of 193 centres and conclusions by the ESNR working group. Neuroradiology 2019; 61(6): 633-42.
  82. Wahlund LO, Barkhof F, Fazekas F, Bronge L, Augustin M, Sjogren M, et al. A new rating scale for age-related white matter changes applicable to MRI and CT. Stroke 2001; 32(6): 1318-22.
  83. Wahlund LO, Westman E, van Westen D, Wallin A, Shams S, Cavallin L, et al. Imaging biomarkers of dementia: recommended visual rating scales with teaching cases. Insights Imaging 2017; 8(1): 79-90.
  84. Ward J, Ly M, Raji CA. Brain PET Imaging: Frontotemporal Dementia. PET Clin 2023; 18(1): 123-33.
  85. Wardlaw JM, Smith EE, Biessels GJ, Cordonnier C, Fazekas F, Frayne R, et al. Neuroimaging standards for research into small vessel disease and its contribution to ageing and neurodegeneration. Lancet Neurol 2013; 12(8): 822-38.
  86. Wheeler KV, Irimia A, Braskie MN. Using Neuroimaging to Study Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy and Its Relationship to Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2024; 97(4): 1479-502.
  87. Whitwell JL, Graff-Radford J, Singh TD, Drubach DA, Senjem ML, Spychalla AJ, et al. (18)F-FDG PET in Posterior Cortical Atrophy and Dementia with Lewy Bodies. J Nucl Med 2017; 58(4): 632-8.
  88. Wolk DA, Zhang Z, Boudhar S, Clark CM, Pontecorvo MJ, Arnold SE. Amyloid imaging in Alzheimer’s disease: comparison of florbetapir and Pittsburgh compound-B positron emission tomography. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012; 83(9): 923-6.
  89. Young PNE, Estarellas M, Coomans E, Srikrishna M, Beaumont H, Maass A, et al. Imaging biomarkers in neurodegeneration: current and future practices. Alzheimers Res Ther 2020; 12(1): 49.
  90. Zhang J, Wang J, Xu X, You Z, Huang Q, Huang Y, et al. In vivo synaptic density loss correlates with impaired functional and related structural connectivity in Alzheimer’s disease. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2023; 43(6): 977-88.
  91. Zheng M-Q, Holden D, Nabulsi N, Lin S-f, Mercier J, Hannestad J, et al. Synthesis and evaluation of &lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;F-UCB-H, a novel PET imaging tracer for the synaptic vesicle protein 2A. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2014; 55(supplement 1): 1792.Zaki LAM, Vernooij MW, Smits M, et al. Comparing two artificial intelligence software packages for normative brain volumetry in memory clinic imaging. Neuroradiology. 2022 Jul;64(7):1359-1366. 
  92. Villemagne VL, Doré V, Burnham SC, Masters CL, Rowe CC. Imaging tau and amyloid-β proteinopathies in Alzheimer disease and other conditions. Nat Rev Neurol 2018; 14(4): 225-36.

Become A Member Today!

You will have access to a wide range of benefits that can help you advance your career and stay up-to-date with the latest developments in the field of radiology. These benefits include access to educational resources, networking opportunities with other professionals in the field, opportunities to participate in research projects and clinical trials, and access to the latest technologies and techniques. 

Check out our different membership options.

If you don’t find a fitting membership send us an email here.

Membership

for radiologists, radiology residents, professionals of allied sciences (including radiographers/radiological technologists, nuclear medicine physicians, medical physicists, and data scientists) & professionals of allied sciences in training residing within the boundaries of Europe

  • Reduced registration fees for ECR 1
  • Reduced fees for the European School of Radiology (ESOR) 2
  • Option to participate in the European Diploma. 3
  • Free electronic access to the journal European Radiology 
  • Content e-mails for all ESR journals4
  • Updates on offers & events through our newsletters
  • Exclusive access to the ESR feed in Juisci

€ 11 /year

Yes! That is less than €1 per month.

Free membership

for radiologists, radiology residents or professionals of allied sciences engaged in practice, teaching or research residing outside Europe as well as individual qualified professionals with an interest in radiology and medical imaging who do not fulfil individual or all requirements for any other ESR membership category & former full members who have retired from all clinical practice
  • Reduced registration fees for ECR 1
  • Option to participate in the European Diploma. 3
  • Free electronic access to the journal European Radiology
  • Content e-mails for all ESR journals 4
  • Updates on offers & events through our newsletters
  • Exclusive access to the ESR feed in Juisci

€ 0

The best things in life are free.

ESR Friends

For students, company representatives or hospital managers etc.

  • Content e-mails for all 3 ESR journals 4
  • Updates on offers & events through our newsletters

€ 0

Friendship doesn’t cost a thing.

The membership type best fitting for you will be selected automatically during the application process.

Footnotes:

01

Reduced registration fees for ECR 2027:
Provided that ESR 2026 membership is activated and approved by August 31, 2026.

02
Not all activities included
03
Examination based on the ESR European Training Curriculum (radiologists or radiology residents).
04
European Radiology, Insights into Imaging, European Radiology Experimental.