Detecting Amyloid Positivity in Elderly With Increased Risk of Cognitive Decline.

The importance of early interventions in Alzheimer's disease (AD) emphasizes the need to accurately and efficiently identify at-risk individuals. Although many dementia prediction models have been developed, there are fewer studies focusing on detection of brain pathology. We developed a model for identification of amyloid-PET positivity using data on demographics, vascular factors, cognition, APOE genotype, and structural MRI, including regional brain volumes, cortical thickness and a visual medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) rating. We also analyzed the relative importance of different factors when added to the overall model. The model used baseline data from the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) exploratory PET sub-study. Participants were at risk for dementia, but without dementia or cognitive impairment. Their mean age was 71 years. Participants underwent a brain 3T MRI and PiB-PET imaging. PiB images were visually determined as positive or negative. Cognition was measured using a modified version of the Neuropsychological Test Battery. Body mass index (BMI) and hypertension were used as cardiovascular risk factors in the model. Demographic factors included age, gender and years of education. The model was built using the Disease State Index (DSI) machine learning algorithm. Of the 48 participants, 20 (42%) were rated as Aß positive. Compared with the Aß negative group, the Aß positive group had a higher proportion of APOE ε4 carriers (53 vs. 14%), lower executive functioning, lower brain volumes, and higher visual MTA rating. AUC [95% CI] for the complete model was 0.78 [0.65-0.91]. MRI was the most effective factor, especially brain volumes and visual MTA rating but not cortical thickness. APOE was nearly as effective as MRI in improving detection of amyloid positivity. The model with the best performance (AUC 0.82 [0.71-0.93]) was achieved by combining APOE and MRI. Our findings suggest that combining demographic data, vascular risk factors, cognitive performance, APOE genotype, and brain MRI measures can help identify Aß positivity. Detecting amyloid positivity could reduce invasive and costly assessments during the screening process in clinical trials.

Association of Peripheral Insulin Resistance and Other Markers of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Brain Amyloid Deposition in Healthy Individuals at Risk of Dementia.

We explored the association of type 2 diabetes related blood markers with brain amyloid accumulation on PiB-PET scans in 41 participants from the FINGER PET sub-study. We built logistic regression models for brain amyloid status with12 plasma markers of glucose and lipid metabolism, controlled for diabetes and APOEɛ4 carrier status. Lower levels of insulin, insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), C-peptide, and plasminogen activator (PAI-1) were associated with amyloid positive status, although the results were not significant after adjusting for multiple testing. None of the models found evidence for associations between amyloid status and fasting glucose or HbA1c.

Prediction models for dementia and neuropathology in the oldest old: the Vantaa 85+ cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We developed multifactorial models for predicting incident dementia and brain pathology in the oldest old using the Vantaa 85+ cohort. METHODS: We included participants without dementia at baseline and at least 2 years of follow-up (N = 245) for dementia prediction or with autopsy data (N = 163) for pathology. A supervised machine learning method was used for model development, considering sociodemographic, cognitive, clinical, vascular, and lifestyle factors, as well as APOE genotype. Neuropathological assessments included ß-amyloid, neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques, cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), macro- and microscopic infarcts, α-synuclein pathology, hippocampal sclerosis, and TDP-43. RESULTS: Prediction model performance was evaluated using AUC for 10 × 10-fold cross-validation. Overall AUCs were 0.73 for dementia, 0.64-0.68 for Alzheimer's disease (AD)- or amyloid-related pathologies, 0.72 for macroinfarcts, and 0.61 for microinfarcts. Predictors for dementia were different from those in previous reports of younger populations; for example, age, sex, and vascular and lifestyle factors were not predictive. Predictors for dementia versus pathology were also different, because cognition and education predicted dementia but not AD- or amyloid-related pathologies. APOE genotype was most consistently present across all models. APOE alleles had a different impact: ε4 did not predict dementia, but it did predict all AD- or amyloid-related pathologies; ε2 predicted dementia, but it was protective against amyloid and neuropathological AD; and ε3ε3 was protective against dementia, neurofibrillary tangles, and CAA. Very few other factors were predictive of pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between predictors for dementia in younger old versus oldest old populations, as well as for dementia versus pathology, should be considered more carefully in future studies.

Development of a Late-Life Dementia Prediction Index with Supervised Machine Learning in the Population-Based CAIDE Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a late-life dementia prediction model using a novel validated supervised machine learning method, the Disease State Index (DSI), in the Finnish population-based CAIDE study. METHODS: The CAIDE study was based on previous population-based midlife surveys. CAIDE participants were re-examined twice in late-life, and the first late-life re-examination was used as baseline for the present study. The main study population included 709 cognitively normal subjects at first re-examination who returned to the second re-examination up to 10 years later (incident dementia n = 39). An extended population (n = 1009, incident dementia 151) included non-participants/non-survivors (national registers data). DSI was used to develop a dementia index based on first re-examination assessments. Performance in predicting dementia was assessed as area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: AUCs for DSI were 0.79 and 0.75 for main and extended populations. Included predictors were cognition, vascular factors, age, subjective memory complaints, and APOE genotype. CONCLUSION: The supervised machine learning method performed well in identifying comprehensive profiles for predicting dementia development up to 10 years later. DSI could thus be useful for identifying individuals who are most at risk and may benefit from dementia prevention interventions.