4.5 Article

SimulAD: a dynamical model for personalized simulation and disease staging in Alzheimer's disease

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 113, 期 -, 页码 73-83

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2021.12.015

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Disease progression models; Clinical trials; Biomarkers

资金

  1. French government, through the UCAJEDI
  2. National Research Agency [ANR-15-IDEX-01, ANR-19-P3IA-0002]
  3. grant AAP Sante [06 2017-260 DGA-DSH]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-19-P3IA-0002] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the validity and generalization of the computational disease progression model SimulAD on a new cohort, and found that it accurately estimated disease severity and had good generalization.
SimulAD is a computational disease progression model (DPM) originally developed on the ADNI database to simulate the evolution of clinical and imaging markers characteristic of AD, and to quantify the dis-ease severity (DS) of a subject. In this work, we assessed the validity of this estimated DS, as well as the generalization of the DPM., by applying SimulAD on a new cohort from the Geneva Memory Center (GMC). The differences between the estimated DS of healthy, mild cognitive impairment and AD demen-tia groups were statistically significant (p-values < 0.05; d >= 0.8). DS correlated with MMSE (rho =-0.55), hippocampal atrophy (rho =-0.62), glucose hypometabolism (rho =-0.67), amyloid burden (rho = 0.31) and tau deposition (rho = 0.62) (p-values < 0.01). Based on the dynamics estimated on the ADNI cohort, we simulated a DPM for the subjects of the GMC cohort. The difference between the temporal evolution of similar biomarkers simulated on the ADNI and GMC cohorts remained below 10%. This study illustrates the robustness and good generalization of SimulAD, highlighting its potential for clinical and pharmaceu-tical studies.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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