4.6 Article

Four subgroups based on tau levels in Alzheimer's disease observed in two independent cohorts

期刊

ALZHEIMERS RESEARCH & THERAPY
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13195-020-00713-3

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; CSF tau; Gaussian mixture modelling; Prognosis

资金

  1. ZonMW Memorabel grant programme [733050824]
  2. Alzheimer Nederland grant [NL18003P]
  3. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  4. Stichting Alzheimer Nederland
  5. Stichting VUmc fonds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using Gaussian mixture modeling, four subgroups were identified based on CSF t-tau and p-tau levels in two independent cohorts, with increasingly high tau subgroups associated with faster clinical decline and higher risk of progression to Alzheimer's disease.
BackgroundAs Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology presents decades before dementia manifests, unbiased biomarker cut-points may more closely reflect presence of pathology than clinically defined cut-points. Currently, unbiased cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tau cut-points are lacking.MethodsWe investigated CSF t-tau and p-tau cut-points across the clinical spectrum using Gaussian mixture modelling, in two independent cohorts (Amsterdam Dementia Cohort and ADNI).ResultsIndividuals with normal cognition (NC) (total n =1111), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (total n =1213) and Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) (total n =1524) were included. In both cohorts, four CSF t- and p-tau distributions and three corresponding cut-points were identified. Increasingly high tau subgroups were characterized by steeper MMSE decline and higher progression risk to AD (cohort/platform-dependent HR, t-tau 1.9-21.3; p-tau 2.2-9.5).LimitationsThe number of subjects in some subgroups and subanalyses was small, especially in the highest tau subgroup and in tau PET analyses.ConclusionsIn two independent cohorts, t-tau and p-tau levels showed four subgroups. Increasingly high tau subgroups were associated with faster clinical decline, suggesting our approach may aid in more precise prognoses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据