Griswold, M E

Abstract Background Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) progression is conceptualized as a cascade of sigmoidal (S‐shaped) curves, with biomarkers shifting sequentially from normal to abnormal states. Estimating these curves requires sophisticated modeling, with challenges including (1) selecting appropriate sigmoidal‐type functions, (2) achieving algorithmic convergence, and (3) producing clinically useful parameters. We compare commonly used sigmoidal‐functions and effects on novel estimates of early and late AD‐biomarker progression ages. Method Using 3,999 Amyloid PET (PiB SUVR) measurements from 1,367 Mayo Clinic Study of Aging participants, we compared model fits (AIC, BIC) between logistic and hyperbolic functions using Non‐Linear Mixed Effect (NLME) models with subject‐specific age‐shifts. We defined novel “initial” and “maximum” acceleration points (IAP and MAP) to compare clinically “earlier” and “later” AD‐progression ages between sigmoidal‐curves. The MAP uses the maximum second‐derivative point, reflecting the age of fastest acceleration in biomarker accumulation. The IAP is defined as the first point where the second derivative of the sigmoidal‐curve exceeds a clinical threshold (here, 5% velocity increase per year), indicating onset age of early accelerated biomarker accumulation. Estimates for C 2 N plasma p ‐tau217 were also attempted (1,306 measurements on 457 participants). Models adjusted for sex and APOE4‐positivity. Result In the larger PET sample, the hyperbola had lower AIC/BIC (better fit), but showed a decreasing early PiB‐SUVR trend (Table 1A, Figure 1). Ages of late MAP were comparable, as were sex and APOE4+ related PiB‐SUVR‐curve shifts. Age of early AD‐onset was estimated 1.5 years earlier for logistic (IAP=63.6) versus hyperbola (IAP=65.1) functions. The logistic function always converged, while the hyperbolic function did not converge for p ‐tau217 in the smaller C 2 N sample. Early‐onset and late‐progression ages were 7‐8 years later for p ‐tau217 versus PiB‐SUVR using logistic‐curves. Conclusion Late AD‐progression and covariate‐related shifts in progression were comparable across models, suggesting robustness to sigmoid choice. In contrast, estimates of early AD‐onset may be more dependent on functional form. While logistic‐sigmoids inherently increase monotonically, hyperbolas do not, here estimating a decline in initial amyloid trend. Future work may explore adding biologically informed constraints to flexible sigmoidal‐functions, and alternative Bayesian approaches, to optimize both model fit and estimation of early AD‐onset age.

Abstract Background Diffusion MRI (dMRI) measures are increasingly being used as biomarkers for aging and dementia in multi‐center studies. Measurements in longitudinal studies are often acquired on different systems, which can result in systematic differences of machine origin (e.g. vendor, hardware, algorithms). This may warrant harmonization prior to pooling multi‐site data. However, harmonization algorithms may introduce a risk of removing valuable information content and reducing sensitivity to physiological factors (e.g. sex, age, disease). Here, we tested the hypothesis that protocol standardization may minimize machine‐origin differences, obviating a need for post‐acquisition harmonization in a two‐site (Mississippi‐MS and Minnesota‐MN) cohort of the longitudinal Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Methods Two data sets were analyzed: first, a crossover dataset with 80 participants (scanned within 2 days) bridging two different protocols on GE and Siemens scanners; second, participants scanned using standardized protocols from the ongoing MCSA ( N MN‐MCSA =204; N MS‐MCSA =52). Parameters are listed in Figure 1. For crossover data, analyses were repeated with GE data resampled to 2‐mm isotropic resolution, and discarding Siemens‐only b‐shells to artificially reduce protocol disparities. Analysis encompassed visualization of overlain subjectwise histogram‐derived densities obtained from whole‐brain masks for dMRI measures; and median dMRI measures from within the genu of the corpus callosum (GCC) with nonparametric statistical testing. When available, both DTI and NODDI measures were compared. Results Pronounced visual distributional differences seen between MD and FA in crossover data were reduced with resampling of GE data and including only b‐shells shared across acquisitions. For the resampled/reshelled data, significant differences remained for all GCC‐FA comparisons, but not all GCC‐MD (Figure 2). For the ongoing MCSA data from two sites, MD and FA whole‐brain densities were more closely aligned, with GCC‐FA and GCC‐MD showing no significant differences (Figure 3). NODDI measures showed more discordant densities than DTI measures, including shifts in most probable values and differences in distributional arrangement. Conclusions Our work provides further evidence supporting protocol and processing standardization for minimizing machine‐origin differences prior to considering harmonization. Differences in dMRI metrics seen when comparing across unstandardized protocols were reduced when protocols were standardized. NODDI metrics had more apparent sensitivity to site than DTI measures.