4.7 Article

Mid- and later-life risk factors for predicting neuropathological brain changes associated with Alzheimer's and vascular dementia: The Honolulu Asia Aging Study and the Age, Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study

Journal

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
Volume 19, Issue 5, Pages 1705-1713

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alz.12762

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; dementia; neuropathology; risk prediction; vascular disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, neuropathological-based risk scores were used to predict clinical dementia, and different models were identified for predicting neurodegenerative and vascular neuropathology. The findings suggest that there may be shared risk factors and pathways across dementia-related lesions.
Introduction Dementia prediction models are necessary to inform the development of dementia risk reduction strategies. Here, we examine the utility of neuropathological-based risk scores to predict clinical dementia. Methods Models were developed for predicting Alzheimer's disease (AD) and non-AD neuropathologies using the Honolulu Asia Aging neuropathological sub-study (HAAS; n = 852). Model accuracy for predicting clinical dementia, over 30 years, was tested in the non-autopsied HAAS sample (n = 2960) and the Age, Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study (n = 4614). Results Different models were identified for predicting neurodegenerative and vascular neuropathology (c-statistic range: 0.62 to 0.72). These typically included age, APOE, and a blood pressure-related measure. The neurofibrillary tangle and micro-vascular lesion models showed good accuracy for predicting clinical vascular dementia. Discussion There may be shared risk factors across dementia-related lesions, suggesting common pathways. Strategies targeting these models may reduce risk or postpone clinical symptoms of dementia as well as reduce neuropathological burden associated with AD and vascular lesions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available