Snyder, Heather M.

Abstract Background Our objective is to examine the generalizability of the relationships between four MRI markers of CVD: DTI‐derived free water (FW), fractional anisotropy (FA), perivascular space (PVS) and white matter hyperintensities (WMH) volume, with vascular risk factors (VRF) and cognition in the baseline POINTER Imaging and Framingham Heart Study (FHS) cohorts. Method We studied 907 U.S. POINTER and 797 FHS Offspring participants with available baseline demographic, clinical and imaging data (Table 1). Continuous FW, FA, WMH (log‐transformed) and PVS measurements were regressed against total cranial volume (TCV). Cognitive outcomes included a Global Cognitive Composite and executive function composite score for POINTER and FHS. For each MRI marker, we used linear and logistic regressions to assess the effect of age, sex, hypertension, diabetes and smoking status, adjusting for ethnicity. We then assessed, for each cognitive outcome, the individual effect of MRI markers using separate linear regressions adjusted for demographic and clinical factors, as well as TCV‐adjusted gray matter volume to control for atrophy. Result POINTER and FHS differed across most demographic and biomarker characteristics (Table 1). Despite these differences, there were similar associations between demographic and VRF and the 4 MRI vascular markers in POINTER and FHS (Figure 1): increased age was associated with worse outcomes for the 4 markers, hypertension was associated with increased FW, PVS and lower FA, diabetes was associated with increased FW only, smoking status did not impact any of the four markers. Only exception was that female had lower FW and increased WMH in POINTER and increased PVS in FHS. Associations between CVD measures and cognition were also similar across cohorts: reduced cognitive performance was significantly associated with both decreased FA and increased FW (Figure 2), but not with WMH nor PVS. Conclusion Our study explores four imaging markers representing diverse mechanisms by which CVD could impact brain structure and function in the POINTER and FHS studies. Despite differences in cohort characteristics, we found mostly consistent CVD relationships with demographic, VRF, and cognitive measures between cohorts which supports the generalizability of the relation of these markers with VRF and cognition identified in the POINTER cohort.

Abstract Background Given low representation of diverse populations in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research, it remains unclear if AD biomarker relationships observed primarily in non‐Hispanic White (NHW) cohorts generalize to other groups. Here we evaluate associations between key AD biomarkers and cognitive performance among cognitively unimpaired non‐Hispanic Blck (NHB) and NHW participants across 2 cohorts with unique sample characteristics. Method Participants included cognitively unimpaired NHB and NHW participants with Aβ and tau PET in ADNI (69 NHB, 402 NHW) and POINTER Imaging (135 NHB, 637 NHW). We examined harmonized measures of global Aβ (in centiloids), entorhinal cortex (EC) tau (quantified with MK6240 in POINTER and FTP in ADNI) and Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC) scores. Regression models within each ethnoracial group evaluated relationships between 1) Aβ and EC tau, and 2) EC tau and PACC performance. Interaction models within each cohort were also conducted to assess differences in these associations by ethnoracial group. All models were adjusted for age and gender. Models with PACC additionally adjusted for education. Result In US POINTER, NHBs had lower Aβ and EC tau burden compared to NHWs (Table 1). In ADNI, there was no difference in EC tau between groups, and no differenence in Aβ after adjusting for age and gender. In US POINTER, the positive Aβ‐EC tau relationship was observed in both ethnoracial groups whereas in ADNI, Aβ was associated with higher EC tau in the NHW but not the NHB group. In both cohorts, EC tau was associated with worse PACC performance in both NHB and NHW and there were no differences in this association by ethnoracial group in interaction models (Figure 1). Conclusion NHBs had lower Aβ and EC tau than NHWs in POINTER but not ADNI, and there were inconsistent associations between Aβ and EC tau across cohorts. Despite these differences, AD biomarkers appear similarly related to cognitive outcomes across ethnoracial groups in both cohorts. Future analyses will attempt to further determine the generalizability of AD biomarker relationships in diverse samples by considering matching on relevant health and demographic characteristics, and inclusion of additional cohorts with harmonized biomarker and cognitive measurements.

Abstract Background Neighborhood socio‐economic conditions may increase Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk through amyloid, tau, atrophy or vascular pathways, potentially varying by genetic risk, race or ethnicity and sex. We examined associations between Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and cognition, AD pathology, gray matter (GM) and white matter hyperintensities (WMH) volume in cognitively unimpaired older adults by race or ethnicity, sex and APOE4 status. Method We included 1896 non‐demented older adults from US POINTER study with available cognitive evaluations, ADI level – a census–based neighborhood disadvantage metric (categorized as low, moderate and high) and a subsample with neuroimaging data ( N = 806). Linear/logistic regressions were used to assess interactions of ADI with sex, race or ethnicity, and APOE4 on (1) the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite, (PACC‐5), (2) MRI‐derived GM volume meta‐ROI (entorhinal, fusiform, parahippocampal, mid‐temporal, inferior temporal), (3) WMH and (4) AD pathology (amyloid and tau PET), adjusted by age, sex and intracranial volume when appropriate. Result African American participants ( p <0.001) and females ( p <0.001) were more likely to live in deprived areas. African American participants had significantly lower PACC‐5 ( p <0.001) and GM volume ( p <0.001), “Other or multiple races” participants showed significantly higher amyloid burden ( p = 0.001), and White participants higher WMH ( p = 0.013). Females showed higher PACC‐5 scores ( p <0.001), while APOE4 carriers showed lower PACC‐5 ( p = 0.042) and higher amyloid burden ( p <0.001) (Table 1). Race and ADI interacted on PACC‐5 ( p = 0.043) and showed a borderline interaction on Tau ( p = 0.079), with higher ADI linked to lower PACC‐5 in White, Hispanic, and “Other or Multiple Races” and higher Tau in Hispanic. Further, there was a borderline ADI*APOE4 status interaction on WMH ( p = 0.059) and a significant ADI*APOE4 interaction on amyloid ( p = 0.001), where APOE4 carriers in deprived areas showed higher WMH and lower amyloid burden (Figure 1). No significant ADI*sex interactions were observed. Conclusion Neighborhood disadvantage was more commonly observed in African American participants, but interaction with cognition was primarily seen in other racial/ethnic groups. APOE4 carriers showed increased amyloid burden, but those from more disadvantaged neighborhoods exhibited a higher vascular component alongside lower amyloid‐driven pathology. These results may indicate varying effects of social disadvantages across groups or sample bias.

Abstract Background Neighborhood social and built environment characteristics may promote physical activity, a modifiable factor for dementia risk, which may in turn promote cognitive and brain health. We explored the associations of the U.S. National Walkability Index ‐ a nationwide geographic data resource that ranks block groups according to their relative walkability – with cognitive function, gray matter (GM) and white matter hyperintensities (WMH), neighborhood disadvantage, sedentary behavior and frequency of physical activity in cognitively unimpaired older adults at increased Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk. Method We included baseline data from 1398 older adults (68.3 ± 5.17 years, 68.3% females, 30.5% APOE4 carriers) from the U.S. POINTER trial. Walkability was classified as: least, below average, above average and most walkable. Neighborhood disadvantage (low, moderate and high) was assessed using Area Deprivation Index (ADI) ( N = 1384). Physical inactivity was assessed using the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ, hours sitting/week, N = 1106), and physical activity was measured with a composite score from the Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) questionnaire. Linear and logistic regressions examined associations between walkability and (1) physical activity and sedentary behavior; and (2) cognition assessed with the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC‐5), GM volume and WMHs, Additionally, associations between neighborhood disadvantage and physical activity and sedentary behavior were explored. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, APOE4 and total intracranial volume. Result More deprived areas were generally less walkable (β = ‐0.008, p < 0.001) (Figure 1). Higher walkability (Above average: β = 0.192, p = 0.011 and most walkable: β = 0.183, p = 0.032) was associated with higher PACC‐5 (Figure 2A) scores but not with more preserved GM or lower WMH. Walkability scores were not associated with physical activity and sedentary measurements, while greater neighborhood disadvantage was linked to sedentary behavior (β = 0.126, p < 0.001) (Figure 2B). Conclusion These results suggest that physical inactivity in more deprived areas is associated with neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantages rather than built environment. Additionally, walkability scores were not associated with any measure of physical activity or brain health, suggesting the need to further investigate other health effects of neighborhood disadvantage and walkability.

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 Background Cognitive impairment often goes undetected by clinicians due to time constraints, limited expertise, and lack of standardized tools. Structured cognitive assessments improve detection accuracy compared to unstructured clinical judgment. In 2013, the Alzheimer’s Association published recommendations to help primary care clinicians incorporate cognitive assessments into the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit. Since then, advances in cognitive assessment tools, availability of disease‐modifying therapies, and shifting expectations around early diagnosis have highlighted the need for updated guidance. In response, the Alzheimer’s Association is developing an evidence‐based clinical practice guideline for cognitive testing in primary care, using the GRADE approach, informed by a systematic review of the best available evidence. Method A multidisciplinary panel formulated a clinical question to inform the development of this guideline. A systematic review was conducted (search range: 1999‐2024) to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ten cognitive tests (5‐Cog, AD8, GPCOG, IQCODE, Mini‐Cog, MIS, MoCA, QDRS, RUDAS, and SLUMS) for the early detection of cognitive impairment (including MCI and dementia), in adults aged 55+ in ambulatory settings. The panel also narratively summarized data on emerging digital tools. Result Forty‐one studies meeting eligibility criteria were included in the systematic review. Results were analyzed separately by test (including short‐IQCODE and short‐MoCA) and for primary care and for ambulatory clinic settings (e.g., neurology, memory disorder clinics), as well as for English and Spanish language, resulting in 21 separate analyses. Only three analyses, all related to MoCA, allowed for meta‐analysis. The panel will use the evidence to inform conditional recommendations for or against each specific test. Conclusion By evaluating the diagnostic performance of selected tests, this guideline aims to support healthcare professionals in primary care settings in effective triaging of individuals who may benefit from further cognitive evaluation. To enhance real‐world applicability, considerations such as administration time, ease of scoring, and diagnostic accuracy ‐ along with appropriate cut‐offs by race/ethnicity, education, and language ‐ should be prioritized. This guideline will be regularly updated over time to reflect emerging evidence and the needs of diverse populations.

Abstract Background Ten years after the original publication, the Centiloid framework is now broadly used to harmonize amyloid‐PET quantification, facilitate data sharing and comparison across cohorts, and even assist visual interpretation in clinical settings. We evaluated the global implementation of Centiloids by comparing their distribution and corresponding positivity thresholds across cohorts. Methods We gathered data from publicly available cohorts and reached out to investigators across the world to collect cross‐sectional Centiloids, demographic and clinical information, and visual read data. Gaussian mixture models (GMM, k=2) were fitted to Centiloid values for each cohort and cutoffs were calculated as mean + 2SD of the lower Gaussian. When visual reads were available, we determined Centiloid cutoffs that maximized correspondence with visual reads (Cohen’s kappa). Data was combined across cohorts using random effects meta‐analyses. Results As of January 2025, we included 37 cohorts ( n = 41,678 participants) with heterogeneous pipelines, radiotracers, and clinical and demographic characteristics (Table‐1). The low Gaussian peaks ranged from ‐9 to 10CL; the meta‐analysis identified a common peak at 1CL. The second peaks were more heterogeneous (range=38‐102CL; meta‐analysis outcome=64CL). Across cohorts, the proportion of cognitively unimpaired versus impaired participants impacted the position of both peaks, with better separation in cohorts enriched in impaired individuals (Figure‐1C). The meta‐analysis indicated a GMM‐based cutoff of 19CL (95%CI: 16‐21CL, Figure‐1B); subgroup analyses showed no evidence of significant effect between single versus multicenter settings (17 versus 20CL, p = 0.30), MRI‐based or PET‐only processing (18 versus 19CL, p = 0.88), and no evidence of difference across radiotracers (Flutemetamol: 16CL; PIB: 17CL, Flutafuranol: 18CL, Florbetaben: 19CL, Florbetapir: 20CL, p = 0.78). In a subset of 29,496 participants with visual reads available, binary visual reads corresponded well to Centiloids (common kappa=0.86, Figure‐2A). The visual read‐based cutoff of 24CL (95%CI: 21‐27CL, Figure‐2B) maximized correspondence between visual read and quantification and was slightly higher than the GMM‐based cutoff. All meta‐analysis models showed high non‐random heterogeneity (I 2 >80%) across studies, suggesting non‐random differences in peaks and cutoffs. Conclusions Meta‐analysis‐based cutoffs align well with thresholds from the existing literature. High heterogeneity among studies underscores the need to investigate contributing factors, raising concerns about applying common cutoffs.

Abstract The landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) diagnosis is evolving rapidly, driven by advances in disease understanding, biomarker tools, and disease‐modifying therapies. Modern diagnostic approaches emphasize biological precision, early detection, and dynamic frameworks that adapt to treatment‐induced changes in disease biology. These frameworks enable opportunities for personalized interventions—encompassing pharmacological and non‐pharmacological strategies—and for enhanced clinical trial design. However, implementing these advancements globally is influenced by diverse cultural, infrastructural, and regulatory factors. The 2024 Alzheimer's Association International Conference Advancements: Modernizing Diagnosis, held in Japan, provided a unique platform to explore these global dynamics, particularly from an Asian perspective. This article highlights key discussions from the conference, exploring the role of biomarker‐based diagnostic frameworks in shaping the future of AD/ADRD research, diagnosis, and treatment. We highlight regional challenges and successes and emphasize ethical considerations and practical strategies needed to ensure equitable access to diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. Highlights Advances in biomarkers are reshaping Alzheimer's disease diagnosis and treatment. Modern diagnostic frameworks highlight biological precision, early detection, and dynamic frameworks. The 2024 Alzheimer's Association International Conference Advancements: Modernizing Diagnosis explored challenges and opportunities in global biomarker implementation. The conference explored geographic‐specific impacts, focusing on Asia.

Abstract BACKGROUND First held in 2020, the Institute on Methods and Protocols for Advancement of Clinical Trials in ADRD (IMPACT‐AD) is a program to train the next generation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (AD/ADRD) clinical trialists. METHODS IMPACT‐AD includes didactic, workshop, and small group components. RESULTS IMPACT‐AD has trained 18 alumni–scholars (accepted from 424 applicants), of whom 67% were female. Forty‐eight (26%) were the first in their family to attend college. Scholars included individuals from all racial and ethnic groups. Each year, participants demonstrated increased learning about AD/ADRD clinical trials through a pre/post‐test model of knowledge assessments. Among those completing annual follow‐up surveys, >84% remain in AD/ADRD trials careers, and 80% have experienced career advances or milestones. In the latter group, > 90% indicated that participating in IMPACT‐AD contributed to this career growth. DISCUSSION IMPACT‐AD is a novel educational program that is achieving its goals. Highlights Over 5 years, the Institute on Methods and Protocols for Advancement of Clinical Trials in ADRD (IMPACT‐AD) has trained 188 scholars. The course has been accessible to a broad range of trainees who were diverse in professional and demographic backgrounds. Objective assessments indicate that participants gain knowledge through participation. Eighty‐four percent of trainees have remained in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) trials careers. Eighty percent of alumni have experienced career advances; nearly all indicated that participating in the course contributed to their success.

AbstractBackgroundThe Institute on Methods and Protocols for Advancement of Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease and Alzheimer’s Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) (IMPACT‐AD) is a novel multi‐disciplinary training program funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Alzheimer’s Association for individuals seeking expertise in designing and conducting AD/ADRD trials. IMPACT‐AD offers a Professionals Track for investigators in a variety of trial roles and a Fellowship Track for future AD/ADRD clinical trial principal investigators.MethodTo evaluate long‐term training outcomes, alumni‐scholars from the 2020‐2022 courses (n = 109) were surveyed via REDCap in January 2024. Measured constructs encompassed alumni‐scholar retention in AD/ADRD trials, promotions received, project funding, and the status of the protocol developed during the course, including whether it had been funded, conducted, and published (Fellowship Track). Alumni‐scholars rated the extent to which the course facilitated their achievements (not at all, somewhat, very much).ResultOf the 63 (58%) of alumni‐scholars who responded (48% Professional Track, 69% Fellowship Track), 44 (70%) were female. 21 (33%) identified as African American/Black, Asian, Multiracial or of another race; 7 (11%) self‐identified as Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. 5 (8%) identified as LGBTQ+. 12 (19%) indicated being first in their families to attend college.Since program completion, 87% of survey participants maintained a career in ADRD clinical trials. A majority (63%) experienced a promotion or career advancement, with all indicating that IMPACT‐AD “somewhat” or “very much” contributed. Less than half of scholars (43%) had received project funding since IMPACT‐AD, but 74% of those had credited IMPACT‐AD at least somewhat for this achievement. Among the 34 Fellowship Track respondents, 15 (44%) indicated that the trial proposed at IMPACT‐AD had received funding, 14 (41%) reported its completion, and 5 (15%) had published its results. Nearly all respondents (%) reported assuming additional roles and responsibilities within their current title. In total, 92% of surveyed participants reported at least one positive change across all measured categories.ConclusionIMPACT‐AD is effectively fulfilling its goals of training, nurturing, and diversifying a next generation of AD/ADRD trialists.