Kapasi, Alifiya

Abstract Reported prevalence estimates of Lewy body pathology (LBP) vary widely, often without considering brain regional distributions or demographic influences. Large, population-representative autopsy cohorts are needed to provide estimates and clarify the distribution and clinical implications of LBP. Neuropathological, genetic, and clinical data were pooled from nine community- or population-based brain autopsy cohorts in the USA (n=6), Brazil, Austria, and Finland (n=7309 total; 59% women; mean age of death 84.2 years). Cognitive status was available for 6166 participants: dementia (38.5%), mild cognitive impairment (14.8%), and cognitively unimpaired (47.0%). Frequency of LBP was examined by anatomical distribution (neocortical, limbic, brainstem, amygdala, olfactory) and stratified by covariates. Prevalence was calculated in meta-analysis, and mixed-effect logistic regression examined associations with sex, cognitive status, Alzheimer’s disease neuropathological change (ADNC), and limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE-NC) co-pathology. Overall, 27.3% of participants had LBP: neocortical 8.4%, limbic 6.8%, brainstem 4.8%, amygdala 3.7%, and olfactory 3.6%. Neocortical LBP was associated with dementia (present in 15%; OR=4.06 [95%CI 3.24-5.10]) and with increased odds of ADNC (OR=2.30 [95%CI 1.88–2.81]) and LATE-NC (OR=2.03 [95%CI 1.69-2.44]). Sex differences were not observed in the frequencies of neocortical or limbic LBP. However, amygdala-predominant LBP was more frequent in women (OR=1.53 [95%CI 1.06-2.21]) whereas brainstem-predominant LBP was more common in men (OR=0.64 [95%CI 0.49-0.84]). Additionally, amygdala-predominant LBP was associated with increased odds of comorbid ADNC (OR=12.7 [95%CI 5.30–30.6]) while brainstem-predominant LBP was not associated with greater odds of ADNC co-pathology (OR=0.88 [95%CI 0.67–1.16]). Pooling data from large, international community-based autopsy cohorts allows for more robust estimates of region-specific LBP prevalence and their associations with cognitive status. The observed sex- and co-pathology–specific differences in brainstem and amygdala-predominant LBP highlight potential biological heterogeneity and suggest that distinct disease pathways may underlie these patterns.

Abstract Our understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) has grown exponentially, thanks to significant investments by the National Institute on Aging (NIA). This article celebrates the 40th anniversary of the NIA's Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers, highlighting the pivotal role of neuropathology as the bedrock for neurodegeneration research. Neuropathology has championed the key principles of proteinopathy, selective vulnerability, and stereotypic spread. Furthermore, neuropathologic studies advanced our understanding of ADRD prevalence, heterogeneity, clinical–pathological correlations, and genetic underpinnings, spurring biomarker development for target engagement and disease monitoring. Disease‐modifying therapies for AD were inspired and informed by neuropathology. The neuropathology community is poised to refine diagnostics, leveraging digital pathology and integrating genetics and pathomics to enhance subtyping for novel precision medicine approaches. Despite some common misconceptions and logistical challenges, neuropathology continues to be a critical component of the ADRD research infrastructure, serving as a key bridge between allied basic and clinical sciences. Highlights We celebrate 40 years of NIA‐funded ADRCs and their contributions through neuropathology studies that have significantly advanced our understanding and treatment of ADRD. Neuropathology uncovers principles of neurodegenerative disease: proteinopathy, selective vulnerability, and stereotypic spread, informing diagnostics and therapies. Development of AD biomarkers with reference to neuropathology enhances accuracy in diagnosis and monitoring, paving the way for targeted disease‐modifying therapies. Integration of digital pathology, genetics, and novel tools in neurodegeneration research promises advanced precision medicine approaches and refined diagnostics. Misconceptions and logistical challenges to neuropathological research are addressed to improve understanding and collaboration.

Abstract Digital pathology (DP) has transformative potential, especially for Alzheimer disease and related disorders. However, infrastructure barriers may limit adoption. To provide benchmarks and insights into implementation barriers, a survey was conducted in 2019 within National Institutes of Health’s Alzheimer’s Disease Centers (ADCs). Questions covered infrastructure, funding sources, and data management related to digital pathology. Of the 35 ADCs to which the survey was sent, 33 responded. Most respondents (81%) stated that their ADC had digital slide scanner access, with the most frequent brand being Aperio/Leica (62.9%). Approximately a third of respondents stated there were fees to utilize the scanner. For DP and machine learning (ML) resources, 41% of respondents stated none was supported by their ADC. For scanner purchasing and operations, 50% of respondents stated they received institutional support. Some were unsure of the file size of scanned digital images (37%) and total amount of storage space files occupied (50%). Most (76%) were aware of other departments at their institution working with ML; a similar (76%) percentage were unaware of multiuniversity or industry partnerships. These results demonstrate many ADCs have access to a digital slide scanner; additional investigations are needed to further understand hurdles to implement DP and ML workflows.

AbstractBackgroundDigital pathology and machine learning (ML) workflows have paradigm shifting potential especially in the field of Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders. However, many institutions/centers may not have access to these technologies. To provide benchmark data, a survey was developed and distributed to National Institutes of Health’s Alzheimer’s Disease Centers (ADCs) in the United States.MethodSurvey questions covered topics such as: infrastructure (i.e. type of digital slide scanners used), funding sources (i.e. how the scanner was funded), and data management/storage (i.e. size of digital files). After development, review, and approval by the ADC digital pathology working group, the survey was distributed via email to 35 past and current ADC directors and/or ADC neuropathology core leaders. Participation in the survey was completely voluntary and answers did not contain any personal data.ResultThe survey generated over a 90% response rate, and the majority of those who completed the survey were neuropathology core leaders; 81% stated their ADC had access to a digital slide scanner, most common brand being Aperio/Leica. One third of respondents stated there was a fee for service to utilize the scanner. For digital pathology and/or ML resources, 40% of respondents stated none are supported in any way by their ADC. To cover the purchase and operation of the scanner, 50% stated they had institutional support. Many were unsure of the approximate average scanned file size of digital images (37%) and total amount of storage space that files occupied (50%). Many (75%) were aware of other departments at their institution working with digital pathology and/or ML, but a similar percentage was unaware of multi‐university or industry partnerships.ConclusionThese results demonstrate many ADCs have access to a digital slide scanner and had institutional support to cover the purchase. However, further investigation is needed to understand hurdles and barriers for implementing both digital pathology and ML workflows aiding in standardized methods across ADCs.

Abstract White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are frequently seen on brain magnetic resonance imaging scans of older people. Usually interpreted clinically as a surrogate for cerebral small vessel disease, WMHs are associated with increased likelihood of cognitive impairment and dementia (including Alzheimer's disease [AD]). WMHs are also seen in cognitively healthy people. In this collaboration of academic, clinical, and pharmaceutical industry perspectives, we identify outstanding questions about WMHs and their relation to cognition, dementia, and AD. What molecular and cellular changes underlie WMHs? What are the neuropathological correlates of WMHs? To what extent are demyelination and inflammation present? Is it helpful to subdivide into periventricular and subcortical WMHs? What do WMHs signify in people diagnosed with AD? What are the risk factors for developing WMHs? What preventive and therapeutic strategies target WMHs? Answering these questions will improve prevention and treatment of WMHs and dementia.