Comprehensive evaluation of AT(N) imaging biomarkers for predicting cognition
Earnest, T.; Yang, B.; Kothapalli, D.; Sotiras, A.; for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative,
Show abstract
Background and ObjectivesImaging biomarkers enable in vivo quantification of amyloid, tau, and neurogenerative pathologies that develop in Alzheimers Disease (AD). Interest in imaging biomarkers has led to a wide variety of biomarker definitions, some of which potentially offer less predictive value than others. We aimed to assess how different operationalizations of AD imaging biomarkers affect prediction of cognition. MethodsWe included individuals from ADNI who underwent amyloid-PET ([18F]-Florbetapir), tau-PET ([18F]-Flortaucipir), and volumetric MRI imaging. We compiled a large collection of imaging biomarker definitions (42 in total) spanning different pathologies (amyloid, tau, neurodegeneration) and variable types (continuous, binary, non-binary categorical). Using cross-validation, we trained regression models to predict neuropsychological performance, both globally and across different subdomains (Phenotype Harmonization Consortium composites), using different combinations of biomarkers. We also compared these biomarker models to support vector machines (SVMs) trained to predict cognition directly from imaging regions of interest. In a subsample of individuals with CSF biomarker readouts, we repeated experiments comparing the accuracy of models using imaging and fluid biomarkers. Additional analyses tested the predictive strength of imaging biomarkers when limited to specific clinical stages of disease (cognitive unimpaired vs. impaired) and when modeling longitudinal cognitive change. ResultsOur sample included 490 people (247 female) with a mix of no impairment (n=288), mild impairment (n=163), and dementia (n=39). While almost all biomarkers tested were predictive of cognitive performance, we observed substantial variability in accuracy, even for measures of the same pathology. Tau biomarkers were the single most accurate single predictors, though combination of biomarkers spanning multiple pathologies were more accurate overall. SVM models were generally more accurate than models using traditional biomarkers. Incorporating continuous or non-binary categorical biomarkers was beneficial only for tau and neurodegeneration, but not amyloid. Patterns of results were largely consistent when considering different clinical stages of disease, neuropsychological domains, and longitudinal cognition. In the CSF subsample (n=246), imaging biomarkers strongly outperformed CSF versions for cognitive prediction. DiscussionWe demonstrated that different imaging biomarker definitions can lead to variability in downstream predictive tasks. Researchers should consider how their biomarker operationalizations may help or hinder the assessment of disease severity.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Tau-PET and in vivo Braak-staging as a prognostic marker in Alzheimer’s disease 97%
- Medial temporal lobe atrophy patterns in early- versus late-onset amnestic Alzheimer's disease 96%
- Comparison and aggregation of event sequences across ten cohorts to describe the consensus biomarker evolution in Alzheimer’s disease 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Cognitive-Functional Composite is sensitive to clinical progression in early dementia: longitudinal findings from the Catch-Cog study cohort 94%
- A metabolite-based machine learning approach to diagnose Alzheimer's-type dementia in blood: Results from the European Medical Information Framework for Alzheimer's Disease biomarker discovery cohort 93%
- Brain simulation augments machine-learning-based classification of dementia 92%