4.7 Article

Different definitions of neurodegeneration produce similar amyloid/neurodegeneration biomarker group findings

期刊

BRAIN
卷 138, 期 -, 页码 3747-3759

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/brain/awv283

关键词

cognitive ageing; amyloid imaging; Alzheimer's disease; preclinical Alzheimer's disease; amyloid and neurodegeneration

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [R01-AG011378, RO1 AG041851, U01-AG06786]
  2. Alexander Family Professorship of Alzheimer's Disease Research
  3. NIH [R01-AG011378, RO1 AG041851, U01-AG06786, U01-AG024904, R01 AG37551, R01AG043392, U01 AG06786, P50 AG16574, R01 DC 12519, P50-AG016574, U01-AG006786, U01-024904]
  4. Alexander Family Alzheimer's Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic
  5. TauRX Pharmaceuticals
  6. Lilly Pharmaceuticals
  7. Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study
  8. GE Healthcare
  9. Siemens Molecular Imaging
  10. AVID Radiopharmaceuticals
  11. NIH (NIA, NCI)
  12. Elsie and Marvin Dekelboum Family Foundation
  13. MN Partnership for Biotechnology and Medical Genomics
  14. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We recently demonstrated that the frequencies of biomarker groups defined by the presence or absence of both amyloidosis (A+) and neurodegeneration (N+) changed dramatically by age in cognitively non-impaired subjects. Our present objectives were to assess the consequences of defining neurodegeneration in five different ways on the frequency of subjects classified as N+, on the demographic associations with N+, and on amyloidosis and neurodegeneration (A/N) biomarker group frequencies by age. This was a largely cross-sectional observational study of 1331 cognitively non-impaired subjects aged 50-89 drawn from a population-based study of cognitive ageing. We assessed demographic associations with N+, and A/N biomarker group frequencies by age where A+ was defined by amyloid PET and N+ was defined in five different ways: (i) abnormal adjusted hippocampal volume alone; (ii) abnormal Alzheimer's disease signature cortical thickness alone; (iii) abnormal fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography alone; (iv) abnormal adjusted hippocampal volume or abnormal fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography; and (v) abnormal Alzheimer's disease signature cortical thickness or abnormal fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. For each N+ definition, participants were assigned to one of four biomarker groups; A-N-, A+N-, A-N+, or A+N+. The three continuous individual neurodegeneration measures were moderately correlated (r(s) = 0.42 to 0.54) but when classified as normal or abnormal had only weak agreement (kappa = 0.20 to 0.29). The adjusted hippocampal volume alone definition classified the fewest subjects as N+ while the Alzheimer's disease signature cortical thickness or abnormal fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography definition classified the most as N+. Across all N+ definitions, N+ subjects tended to be older, more often male and APOE4 carriers, and performed less well on functional status and learning and memory than N- subjects. For all definitions of neurodegeneration, (i) the frequency of A-N- was 100% at age 50 and declined monotonically thereafter; (ii) the frequency of A+N- increased from age 50 to a maximum in the mid-70s and declined thereafter; and3 (iii) the frequency of A-N+ (suspected non-Alzheimer's pathophysiology) and of A+N+ increased monotonically beginning in the mid-50s and mid-60s, respectively. Overall, different neurodegeneration measures provide similar but not completely redundant information. Despite quantitative differences, the overall qualitative pattern of the A-N-, A+N-, A-N+, and A+N+ biomarker group frequency curves by age were similar across the five different definitions of neurodegeneration. We conclude that grouping subjects by amyloidosis and neurodegeneration status (normal/abnormal) is robust to different imaging definitions of neurodegeneration and thus is a useful way for investigators throughout the field to communicate in a common classification framework.

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

4.7
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