Burnham, Samantha C.

Abstract Background Sex, education and race/ethnicity are all associated with risk of Alzheimer's disease dementia. Here, we assess the effects of self‐reported sex, educational attainment and race/ethnicity on amyloid‐positivity, and tau‐PET‐positivity in 12,048 (7,394 cognitively unimpaired [CU], 2,177 MCI, and 2,477 dementia) individuals from 42 cohorts worldwide. Method Logistic generalized estimating equations were used to estimate frequency of amyloid‐positivity (using cohort‐specific thresholds for amyloid‐PET [84%] or CSF) and tau‐PET‐positivity (cohort‐specific thresholds of 2SD above mean temporal uptake in amyloid‐negative controls). We assessed: i) sex and APOEε4 ( N = 10,098) associations, to complement earlier findings of a higher frequency of tau‐positivity in females, ii) effects of lower/higher education ( N = 10,970; cohort‐specific median‐split), and iii) effects of race/ethnicity (non‐Hispanic White [hereafter: White], N = 4880; Asian, N = 116; Black or African‐American [hereafter: Black], N = 353; Hispanic, N = 356, only from Northern‐American cohorts). Outcomes were frequency of amyloid‐positivity in CU individuals only, and tau‐PET‐positivity in both amyloid‐positive (AB+) CU and cognitively impaired (CI, i.e. MCI and dementia) individuals. Interaction effects on the relationship between age and amyloid/tau‐positivity were assessed and only retained in the models when significant. Result Female sex was associated with an APOEε4 ‐independent increased frequency of amyloid‐positivity (β=0.51[0.22], p = 0.02) in CU and increase of tau‐positivity in both AB+CU (β=0.27[0.08]) and AB+CI (β=0.37[0.08], both p <0.01). Remarkably, tau‐positivity frequencies of female APOEε4 non‐carriers were equivalent to male APOEε4 carriers in AB+CI (Figure 1). No significant sex* APOE interactions were observed. In CU, higher education was associated with lower amyloid‐positivity frequency (β=‐0.12[0.05], p = 0.02). In contrast, among AB+CU, there was an age*education interaction effect that indicated more pronounced age effects on tau‐positivity in individuals with higher education (age*education:β interaction =0.03[0.01], p <0.01). There were no education effects in AB+CI (Figure 2). In CU, an age*race/ethnicity interaction effect was observed across all non‐White groups compared to White (Hispanic:β interaction =‐0.05[0.01], p <0.01; Black:‐0.04[0.01], p <0.01; Asian:‐0.02[0.01], p = 0.04). This suggests that the impact of age on amyloid‐positivity was less pronounced in non‐White groups. Furthermore, in AB+CI, Hispanic ethnicity was related to higher tau‐positivity frequency than White (β=0.51[0.22], p = 0.02; Figure 3). Conclusion In this multi‐center initiative comprised of clinical and community‐based cohorts, we observed that self‐reported sex, educational attainment and race/ethnicity were related to positivity‐frequencies of Alzheimer's disease pathology.

AbstractBackgroundThe residual approach has found wide application in researching cognitive resilience, a phenomenon conceptually understood as cognitive performance being better‐than‐typical for an individual, despite apparent AD pathology. The standard residual approach extracts information about an individual’s resilience from the residuals of a linear model predicting cognition. This approach is subject to several limiting assumptions. Here, we explore the implications of these assumptions and propose an alternative predictive modeling approach which circumvents them.MethodsOur alternative approach relies on training a machine learning model on a sample of participants who follow a “typical” clinical progression (Fig. 1A). Residuals are then extracted for a heterogeneous dataset that potentially includes resilient participants by comparing observed cognitive outcomes to those predicted by the “typical” model (Fig. 1B). Additionally, our estimate can be refined by effectively estimating and removing model error from the extracted residual by leveraging a second predictive model (Fig. 1C). Using simulated data, we explore the assumptions made by the standard approach and the consequences of their violation. We then contrast this against our approach.ResultsOur simulations demonstrated that the standard residual approach only extracted accurate resilience estimates if the predictors used in the model explained cognition sufficiently well, while being unrelated to resilience itself. That is, as the predictors explain more of the resilience, the residuals became increasingly determined by model error (Fig. 2). We found that residuals achieved with our approach are more precise and provide individualized estimates that are unaffected by the aforementioned trade‐off (Fig. 3).ConclusionsOur approach holds several advantages over the standard approach: The definition of resilience can be freely adjusted and enforced via different definitions of “typical”, it allows for incorporating complex, non‐linear models without removing relevant information from the residual, the error component of the residual can be estimated through cross‐validation, and all predictors that potentially explain cognition can be included into the model without losing resilience information from the residual. Our approach can be used to measure any phenomenon that can be operationalized as a deviation from a typical outcome and, thus, is also applicable for researching resistance to pathology.

Abstract The newly proposed revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer's disease (AD) by the Alzheimer's Association (AA) Workgroup represent a significant milestone in the field. These criteria offer objective measures for diagnosing and staging biological AD, bridging the gap between research and clinical care. Although implementation feasibility may vary across regions and settings, improving the availability and accuracy of biomarkers, especially plasma biomarkers, is expected to enhance the applicability of these criteria in clinical practice. The Fall 2023 Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) meeting served as a forum for gathering industry perspectives and feedback on these revised criteria, ensuring that the new criteria inform research, clinical trial design, and clinical care. In this article, we outline a summary of the newly proposed “Revised Criteria for Diagnosis and Staging of AD: AA Workgroup” and provide highlights from the AARR meeting in fall 2023. Highlights The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) convened leaders from industry, academia, and government, to review the Revised Criteria for Diagnosis and Staging of AD: AA Workgroup , and gather industry perspectives and feedback on these revised criteria before its publication. The newly proposed revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer's disease (AD) by the AA's Workgroup represent a significant milestone, offering objective measures for the biological and staging of AD and bridging the gap between research and clinical care. Improving the availability and accuracy of biomarkers, especially blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) is expected to improve clinical research and enhance the applicability of these criteria in clinical practice.