Farias, Sarah

Importance Brain imaging biomarkers may (1) identify underlying mechanisms of intervention effects and (2) define brain characteristics of those most likely to benefit cognitively from the intervention. Objective To test whether (1) a lifestyle intervention is related to brain changes, (2) brain changes are correlated with intervention-specific cognition changes, and (3) brain imaging biomarkers provide information about who is likely to benefit from a lifestyle intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants In this randomized clinical trial, the POINTER Imaging study was an ancillary study of the 2-year, single-blind multicenter US POINTER clinical trial in which neuroimaging data were collected on eligible enrolled participants. The study was conducted from May 2019 to March 2023 (final follow-up, May 14, 2025). Participants were enrolled into the POINTER Imaging study following a standard procedure at 5 clinical sites in the US. Participant eligibility criteria included an age of 60 to 79 years, sedentary lifestyle, and suboptimal diet, plus at least 2 additional risk criteria for cognitive decline and no contraindications for neuroimaging. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive the structured or self-guided intervention. Both interventions emphasized increased physical and cognitive activity, healthy nutrition, social engagement, and cardiovascular health monitoring, but they differed in intensity and accountability. Main Outcomes and Measures There were 4 primary imaging outcomes: global β-amyloid (Aβ) burden, tau burden in the entorhinal cortex (ERC), hippocampal (HC) volume, and white matter hyperintensity volume. The primary cognitive measure was a global cognitive composite. Results Among 1943 parent trial participants who were assessed for eligibility, 983 underwent at least 1 magnetic resonance imaging or positron emission tomography scanning session. The mean (SD) age was 68.4 (5.2) years; 605 participants (61.5%) were female and 378 male (38.5%). Five hundred sixteen participants received the structured intervention and 467 the self-guided intervention. There were no intervention group differences in longitudinal cognitive or imaging outcomes. Intervention group differences were not associated with or moderated by Aβ status or accumulation. There was a negative association between change in ERC tau and change in global cognition in the self-guided group that was attenuated in the structured group (difference in association: 0.289; 95% CI, 0.029 to 0.550; interaction P = .03). Lower baseline HC volume was associated with greater cognitive benefit for participants in the structured group vs the self-guided group (lower HC: 0.077 SD; 95% CI, 0.022 to 0.132; higher HC: 0.002 SD; 95% CI, −0.037 to 0.041; interaction P = .03). Conclusion and Relevance This study found that a high-intensity multidomain lifestyle intervention did not affect brain biomarker trajectories and was not associated with Aβ pathology, but older adults with specific at-risk brain characteristics, including lower baseline HC volume, showed a greater cognitive benefit of the structured intervention. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688126

Abstract Background In aging and dementia research, the relationships between modifiable risk factors and biomarkers often vary across cohorts. We aim to evaluate the consistency and generalizability of the association between the area deprivation index (ADI) ‐ an indicator of socioeconomic/resource disadvantage within a specific area ‐ and cognition and Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers across three distinct research cohorts, two from the U.S. (U.S. POINTER Imaging, ADNI) and one from Spain (UBRAIN). Method We included a total of 3091 participants without dementia, 1879 from U.S. POINTER Imaging, 282 from ADNI and 930 from UBRAIN (Table 1). The ADI was calculated using validated indices from the US and Spain, with neighborhood deprivation ranked as Low, Moderate, and High in the US, and Low and High in Spain. Outcomes of interest included (1) the preclinical Alzheimer's cognitive composite (PACC‐5), (2) MRI‐derived gray matter volumes in AD‐vulnerable regions and (3) PET or CSF‐derived amyloid status (+/‐). We ran logistic regression models with ADI level as predictor adjusted by sex, age, and APOE4 and considered education and race or ethnicity (only US cohorts) in our analyses. Result Participants in more deprived areas had lower education across cohorts and were more likely to be female (U.S. POINTER) and African American (U.S. POINTER and ADNI, Table 1). Independent of age, sex and APOE4 status, higher ADI was associated with lower PACC in U.S. POINTER (Moderate: β=‐0.165, p <0.001; High β=‐0.412, p <0.001) and UBRAIN (ADI: High β=‐0.096, p = 0.022) but not in ADNI (Figure 1). After controlling for education, this association remained significant in U.S. POINTER (Moderate: β=‐0.166, p = 0.002; High: β=‐0.248, p = 0.007) but not in UBRAIN (β=‐0.021, p = 0.66). In U.S. POINTER, there was a trend towards an association of higher ADI with lower GM volume in AD‐vulnerable regions (β=‐0.126, p = 0.089) that was not observed in ADNI or UBRAIN (Figure 2). No associations between ADI and amyloid status were found across cohorts. Conclusion We observed differing associations in neighborhood deprivation and cognition across US cohorts, as well as between the US and Spain cohorts. Country‐specific factors and sample representativeness must be considered when investigating the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying social determinants and disparities in AD.

Abstract Objective Clinical neuropsychology is an evidence-based discipline that draws heavily from the field’s peer-reviewed journal articles. However, our scientific understanding of the methods and content that comprise the articles published in clinical neuropsychology journals is quite limited. Method A mixed methods approach was used to describe the aims, methods, and content of clinical neuropsychology’s major lifespan journals. Six-hundred articles were randomly sampled from the 2020–2024 volumes of six lifespan clinical neuropsychology journals. All articles were coded across 42 dimensions, including article type, population, design, methods, ability domains, and miscellaneous topics (e.g., brain health). The aims/scope sections of the journals were subjected to qualitative analyses, to identify relevant themes. Results The most common article content was observed in the areas of empirical/data-driven studies, cross-sectional and observational designs, older and neurological participants, cognitive testing of higher-order abilities, and psychometrics/methods. Results showed significant between-journal differences for some of these content areas at broadly medium effect sizes (e.g., experimental design, brain health topics). Qualitative analyses yielded five shared themes, suggesting that the lifespan clinical neuropsychology journals are interested in submissions on brain-behavior relationships, clinical applications, both clinical and healthy/typical populations, professional/guild matters, and multidisciplinary investigations. Conclusions The scientific content published within clinical neuropsychology’s six primary lifespan journals varies in some dimensions, but largely focuses on cross-sectional, observational studies of psychometrics and higher-order cognition. The implications of these findings for future research in clinical neuropsychology are contextualized for authors, reviewers, and readers.