4.8 Article

Forecasting individual progression trajectories in Alzheimer's disease

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-35712-5

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study developed a statistical model, AD Course Map, for predicting the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) based on current medical and radiological data. The model was tested on a large dataset of over 96,000 cases and showed high accuracy in predicting clinical endpoints. By enriching the population with predicted progressors, the required sample size for trials could be reduced by 38% to 50%.
The anticipation of progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is crucial for evaluations of secondary prevention measures thought to modify the disease trajectory. However, it is difficult to forecast the natural progression of AD, notably because several functions decline at different ages and different rates in different patients. We evaluate here AD Course Map, a statistical model predicting the progression of neuropsychological assessments and imaging biomarkers for a patient from current medical and radiological data at early disease stages. We tested the method on more than 96,000 cases, with a pool of more than 4,600 patients from four continents. We measured the accuracy of the method for selecting participants displaying a progression of clinical endpoints during a hypothetical trial. We show that enriching the population with the predicted progressors decreases the required sample size by 38% to 50%, depending on trial duration, outcome, and targeted disease stage, from asymptomatic individuals at risk of AD to subjects with early and mild AD. We show that the method introduces no biases regarding sex or geographic locations and is robust to missing data. It performs best at the earliest stages of disease and is therefore highly suitable for use in prevention trials.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available