Ritchie, Craig

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Neighborhood deprivation increases dementia risk, although mechanisms remain unclear. We tested a framework in which modifiable risk factors and cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) mediate the link between neighborhood deprivation and cognition. METHODS In 585 cognitively healthy midlife adults (ages 40–59), neighborhood deprivation was derived from postcodes, cognition was assessed using the COGNITO, lifestyle risk factors were measured using clinical assessments, and SVD (white matter hyperintensities, lacunes, microbleeds, perivascular spaces) was assessed on 3T magnetic resonance imaging. Multivariate analyses examined association pathways among these variables. RESULTS Neighborhood deprivation was associated with poorer cognition ( r = 0.36, p < 0.001), greater prevalence of modifiable risk factors ( r = 0.36, p < 0.001), and greater SVD burden ( β = 0.18, p = 0.008). Serial mediation showed that the effects of deprivation on cognition were indirect, possibly operating via lifestyle risk and SVD, explaining 20% of the total effect, whereas SVD alone explained 28%. DISCUSSION Neighborhood disadvantage relates to poorer cognition, possibly mediated through vascular risk factors and cerebrovascular disease. Highlights Neighborhood deprivation linked to poorer cognition in healthy midlife adults Deprivation linked to small vessel disease (SVD) and modifiable risk factors (chiefly cardiovascular risk) Association between deprivation and cognition mediated by modifiable risk and SVD Mediation was exclusive to hypertensive SVD, but not cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA)‐related SVD

Importance Since 2018, a movement has emerged to define Alzheimer disease (AD) as a purely biological entity based on biomarker findings. The recent revision of the Alzheimer’s Association (AA) criteria for AD furthers this direction. However, concerns about a purely biological definition of AD being applied clinically, the understanding of AD by society at large, and the translation of blood-based biomarkers into clinical practice prompt these International Working Group (IWG) updated recommendations. Objective To consider the revised AA criteria and to offer an alternative definitional view of AD as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use. The recommendations of the 2021 IWG diagnostic criteria are updated for further elaborating at-risk and presymptomatic states. Evidence Review PubMed was searched for articles published between July 1, 2020, and March 1, 2024, using the terms “biomarker” OR “amyloid” OR “tau” OR “neurodegeneration” OR “preclinical” OR “CSF” OR “PET” OR “plasma” AND “Alzheimer’s disease.” The references of relevant articles were also searched. Findings In the new AA diagnostic criteria, AD can be defined clinically as encompassing cognitively normal people having a core 1 AD biomarker. However, recent literature shows that the majority of biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic along a proximate timeline. In the clinical setting, disclosing a diagnosis of AD to cognitively normal people with only core 1 AD biomarkers represents the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease. Conclusions and Relevance The ultimate aim of the field was to foster effective AD treatments, including preventing symptoms and dementia. The approach of diagnosing AD without a clinical and biological construct would be unwarranted and potentially concerning without a clear knowledge of when or whether symptoms will ever develop. It is recommended that those who are amyloid-positive only and, more generally, most biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals, should not be labeled as having AD. Rather, they should be considered as being at risk for AD. The expansion of presymptomatic AD is viewed as a better diagnostic construct for those with a specific pattern of biomarkers, indicating that they are proximate to the expression of symptoms in the near future.