Vonk, Jet M. J.

Background: Cognitive change is an important factor in understanding dementia. Estimating effects of exposures on cognitive change requires choosing an analytical timescale, typically time on study or current age. There is limited consensus regarding timescale choice in epidemiologic cognitive aging research. Methods: Using a coordinated analytic approach in 10 cohorts of older adults, we evaluated whether estimated effects of two exposures on memory change differed depending on timescale (time on study or current age). We modeled effects of apolipoprotein-E (APOE) ε4 genotype (a time-invariant exposure) and diabetes (a potentially time-varying/acquired exposure evaluated at baseline) using mixed-effects models with linear and nonlinear time specifications for both timescales. Results: Among APOE ε4 carriers, model-estimated memory scores at baseline (time on study timescale) or at each cohort’s median baseline age (current age timescale) were lower, and the average rate of decline was faster than among APOE ε4 noncarriers. Model-estimated memory scores at baseline or at median baseline age were generally similar across baseline diabetes status, with variability across cohorts in the diabetes-memory change association. In some cohorts, trends in diabetes-memory change associations differed in direction across timescales. Conclusions: Timescale was largely inconsequential for estimated effects of APOE genotype, but yielded differences in estimated diabetes effects, raising questions about the appropriate scale. The current age scale may be problematic because diabetes was measured heterogeneously in age across individuals, a common issue in aging cohorts. Our work demonstrates approaches to evaluate alternative timescales, including in multicohort analyses, and highlights potential implications for estimated exposure effects on cognitive change.

AbstractBackgroundFrontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a diverse spectrum of neurodegenerative disorders impacting the frontal and temporal lobes, primarily manifesting as behavioral and/or language issues. Accurate diagnosis is crucial for effective management, potential treatment, and care planning. While speech analysis has shown promise in detecting cognitive markers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), its exploration in FTD is limited. This study examined if linguistic features from remote, app‐based speech collection can differentiate healthy controls (HC) from individuals with behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD), the most common FTD variant.MethodParticipants included 15 bvFTD (mean age = 64.3, SD = 9.1 years) and 19 HC (mean = 55.8, SD = 14.2) from the ALLFTD Consortium. Participants were prompted to talk freely about a happy memory; audio recordings were collected with the ALLFTD Mobile App, transcribed using OpenAI’s large Whisper model, and manually quality‐checked. We extracted 98 linguistic features using our in‐house pipeline (Fig 1). Features were selected for classification analysis if they differed between groups based on a MANCOVA adjusted for age, sex/gender, and education, with feature reduction in case of collinearity. We then determined if these features could classify groups using multi‐variable logistic regression models, and subsequently calculated its ROC‐AUC score to measure sensitivity/specificity.ResultBased on the MANCOVA, three features were selected for classification analysis: average seconds of non‐speech (i.e., silence), ratio of number of complex nominal clauses to total clauses, and number of restarts (i.e., disfluency). The logistic model showed that this set could distinguish between groups (Omnibus p = .001; Nagelkerke R2 = .499), and their saved prediction probabilities indicated a ROC‐AUC score of 84.8% accuracy (Fig 2).ConclusionLeveraging a flexible speech capture app with remote accessibility and state‐of‐the‐art automated speech analysis, we identified linguistic features that can distinguish HC from bvFTD. This approach presents a promising screening tool for detecting bvFTD, offering quick, easily administered assessments with the potential for scalable implementation outside of clinical settings. Next steps are to investigate linguistic changes in presymptomatic mutation carriers and compare speech profiles between FTD and AD. These results hold meaningful implications for addressing current challenges in FTD therapeutics, potentially offering sensitive outcome measures for clinical trials and future tools for personalized cognitive assessment and long‐term monitoring.

Abstract Sex and gender—biological and social constructs—significantly impact the prevalence of protective and risk factors, influencing the burden of Alzheimer's disease (AD; amyloid beta and tau) and other pathologies (e.g., cerebrovascular disease) which ultimately shape cognitive trajectories. Understanding the interplay of these factors is central to understanding resilience and resistance mechanisms explaining maintained cognitive function and reduced pathology accumulation in aging and AD. In this narrative review, the ADDRESS! Special Interest Group (Alzheimer's Association) adopted a multidisciplinary approach to provide the foundations and recommendations for future research into sex‐ and gender‐specific drivers of resilience, including a sex/gender‐oriented review of risk factors, genetics, AD and non‐AD pathologies, brain structure and function, and animal research. We urge the field to adopt a sex/gender‐aware approach to resilience to advance our understanding of the intricate interplay of biological and social determinants and consider sex/gender‐specific resilience throughout disease stages. Highlights Sex differences in resilience to cognitive decline vary by age and cognitive status. Initial evidence supports sex‐specific distinctions in brain pathology. Findings suggest sex differences in the impact of pathology on cognition. There is a sex‐specific change in resilience in the transition to clinical stages. Gender and sex factors warrant study: modifiable, immune, inflammatory, and vascular.

Abstract Sex or gender differences in the risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) differ by world region, suggesting that there are potentially modifiable risk factors for intervention. However, few epidemiological or clinical ADRD studies examine sex differences; even fewer evaluate gender in the context of ADRD risk. The goals of this perspective are to: (1) provide definitions of gender, biologic sex, and sexual orientation. and the limitations of examining these as binary variables; (2) provide an overview of what is known with regard to sex and gender differences in the risk, prevention, and diagnosis of ADRD; and (3) discuss these sex and gender differences from a global, worldwide perspective. Identifying drivers of sex and gender differences in ADRD throughout the world is a first step in developing interventions unique to each geographical and sociocultural area to reduce these inequities and to ultimately reduce global ADRD risk. Highlights The burden of dementia is unevenly distributed geographically and by sex and gender. Scientific advances in genetics and biomarkers challenge beliefs that sex is binary. Discrimination against women and sex and gender minority (SGM) populations contributes to cognitive decline. Sociocultural factors lead to gender inequities in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) worldwide.