4.6 Article

Predicting Alzheimer's disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers

Journal

ALZHEIMERS RESEARCH & THERAPY
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13195-015-0152-z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [125740, 13129]
  2. Linda C. Campbell Foundation
  3. Heart AMP
  4. Stroke Foundation Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery
  5. L'Oreal Canada for Women in Science Research Excellence Fellowship
  6. Canadian Vascular Network
  7. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Hurvitz Brain Sciences Program at the Sunnybrook Research Institute, Brill Chair Neurology
  8. University of Toronto
  9. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (National Institutes of Health Grant) [U01 AG024904]
  10. DOD ADNI (Department of Defense award) [W81XWH-12-2-0012]
  11. National Institute on Aging
  12. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  13. Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation
  14. Araclon Biotech
  15. BioClinica, Inc.
  16. Biogen
  17. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
  18. CereSpir, Inc.
  19. Eisai Inc.
  20. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  21. Eli Lilly and Company
  22. EuroImmun
  23. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
  24. Fujirebio
  25. GE Healthcare
  26. IXICO Ltd.
  27. Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research AMP
  28. Development, LLC.
  29. Johnson AMP
  30. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research AMP
  31. Development LLC.
  32. Lumosity
  33. Lundbeck
  34. Merck Co., Inc.
  35. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.
  36. NeuroRx Research
  37. Neurotrack Technologies
  38. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
  39. Pfizer Inc.
  40. Piramal Imaging
  41. Servier
  42. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
  43. Transition Therapeutics
  44. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  45. Northern California Institute for Research and Education
  46. AbbVie, Alzheimer's Association
  47. Fonds de recherche du Quebec - Sante

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The definition of objective cognitive impairment in current criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) varies considerably between research groups and clinics. This study aims to compare different methods of defining memory impairment to improve prediction models for the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD) from baseline to 24 months. Methods: The sensitivity and specificity of six methods of defining episodic memory impairment (< -1, -1.5 or -2 standard deviations [SD] on one or two memory tests) were compared in 494 non-demented seniors from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative using the area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operating characteristic analysis. The added value of non-memory measures (language and executive function) and biomarkers (hippocampal and white-matter hyperintensity volume, brain parenchymal fraction [BPF], and APOE epsilon 4 status) was investigated using logistic regression. Results: Baseline scores < -1 SD on two memory tests predicted AD with 75.91 % accuracy (AUC = 0.80). Only APOE epsilon 4 status further improved prediction (B = 1.10, SE = 0.45, p = .016). A < -1.5 SD cut-off on one test had 66.60 % accuracy (AUC = 0.77). Prediction was further improved using Trails B/A ratio (B = 0.27, SE = 0.13, p = .033), BPF (B = -15.97, SE = 7.58, p = .035), and APOEe4 status (B = 1.08, SE = 0.45, p = .017). A cut-off of < -2 SD on one memory test (AUC = 0.77, SE = 0.03, 95 % CI 0.72-0.82) had 76.52 % accuracy in predicting AD. Trails B/A ratio (B = 0.31, SE = 0.13, p = .017) and APOE epsilon 4 status (B = 1.07, SE = 0.46, p = .019) improved predictive accuracy. Conclusions: Episodic memory impairment in MCI should be defined as scores < -1 SD below normative references on at least two measures. Clinicians or researchers who administer a single test should opt for a more stringent cut-off and collect and analyze whole-brain volume. When feasible, ascertaining APOE epsilon 4 status can further improve prediction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available