Vemuri, Prashanthi

AbstractBackgroundThe U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER) is a two‐year randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effects of lifestyle interventions on older adults aged 60‐79 years. The POINTER Imaging ancillary study employs arterial spin labeling (ASL) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with two inversion times, enabling the mapping of arterial transit time (ATT) and the investigation of its relationship with dementia risk factors. This study examines the effect of the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) on ATT, which provides hemodynamic information on the cerebral vasculature.MethodA subset of POINTER Imaging participants (n = 134; F/M = 81/53; age = 68.1±5.1; FRS = 11.3±10.4) from two imaging sites underwent two ASL MRI scans during the baseline session. Two 3D Pulsed ASL scans were obtained with TI1 of 790ms and TI2 values of 2000ms or 2750ms, providing delay times (between labeling and imaging) of 1210ms or 1960ms. ATT, the time required for blood to travel from the neck to the tissue, was estimated in the range of 1210ms and 1960ms using a kinetic model (Figure 1). ATT maps were normalized to a standard space, and a voxel‐wise linear regression (ATT∼age+sex+log(FRS)) was performed on ATT maps in gray matter to assess the effect of FRS on ATT. To control false positives, clusters smaller than 1.4ml were removed based on a simulation with α = 0.05.ResultFigure 2 depicts three clusters found in the occipital, precuneus and frontal gray matter regions, all of which demonstrate a positive relationship between ATT and log(FRS). Participants with higher FRS exhibit prolonged mean ATT values in the clusters as shown in Figure 3. After stratifying into sex groups, both groups show the same direction.ConclusionAlthough the detectable range of ATT with two ASL scans was limited, the analysis suggests that an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, as quantified by the Framingham Risk Score, can serve as an indicator of potential cerebrovascular disease leading to prolonged ATT, which is associated with arterial stiffness, and vascular resistance. The clusters demonstrating the association between FRS and ATT are the brain regions that may have heightened vulnerability to vascular risk factors, according to previous studies.

AbstractBackgroundWe examined neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) and psychotropic medication use at the midway point of data collection of the Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study (LEADS). We compared amyloid‐positive early‐onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) participants and amyloid‐negative early‐onset non‐Alzheimer’s disease [EOnonAD]) participants across NPS domains and psychotropic medication categories.Method282 participants enrolled in LEADS were compared across diagnostic groups – amyloid‐positive EOAD (n = 212) and amyloid‐negative EOnonAD (n = 70). All participants were between ages 40 and 64 at baseline. NPS were measured with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Questionnaire (NPI‐Q) and Geriatric Depression Scale – Short Form (GDS‐SF). Medications were categorized into psychotropic category (e.g., antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines). Groups were compared on NPI‐Q using binary logistic regression adjusting for sex and disease severity, on GDS‐SF using linear regression adjusting for sex and disease severity, and on psychotropic medication use using Chi square or Fisher’s exact test.ResultDemographic data are presented in Table 1. Average total NPI‐Q score was higher in EOnonAD than EOAD (p = .002, ŋp 2 = .03). Regardless of diagnostic group, informants endorsed Affective behaviors most frequently (76.2%). EOAD informants endorsed fewer Distress‐Tension behaviors (p = .02, OR = .498) and Impulse Control behaviors (p = .01, OR = .438). EOAD informants also endorsed apathy (p < .001, OR = .316), irritability (p = .02, OR = .498), and disinhibition (p = .04, OR = .476) at lower frequency than EOnonAD. GDS‐SF showed that the EOnonAD participants self‐reported more symptoms of depression than the EOAD group (p = .002, ŋp 2 = .03). (Table 2A). A minority of participants, regardless of diagnostic group, reported psychotropic medication use (35%). There was higher use in EOnonAD (38%) than EOAD (24%) (p = .03, Cohen W = .14) (Table 2B).ConclusionNPS burden and psychotropic medication use were higher in EOnonAD than EOAD participants, despite EOnonAD being less severely impaired. LEADS continues to collect data. Future studies will examine etiologies that may be larger drivers of NPS than AD neuropathology, mediators (e.g., race, ethnicity) in the association between NPS and diagnostic group classication, compare NPS in EOAD vs. LOAD, and examine longitudinal changes in neuropsychiatric profiles.

AbstractBackgroundApproximately 10‐25% of amnestic early‐onset dementia are negative for amyloid (Early‐onset non‐Alzheimer’s Disease, EOnonAD). EOnonAD is a heterogenous group with various etiologies. In order to better understand the traits of EOnonAD, we clustered amnestic EOnonAD individuals according to cognitive patterns.MethodCognitive data of 62 EOnonAD individuals from the Longitudinal Early‐onset AD study (LEADS) were Z‐normalized to 91 intact individuals after adjusting for age, sex, and education. This led to domain‐averaged composite Z‐scores for memory, language, speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function. Cluster analysis using the Ward method on the residuals for the five composites was performed. We used Scree plot using the pseudo T‐squared to determine the optimal number of clusters. We compared demographics, imaging biomarkers (amyloid and tau PET SUVR, hippocampal volume), plasma (pTau231, Aß40, Aß42, glial fibrillary acidic protein, and neurofilament light chain (NfL)), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers (Aß42/40, NfL, Neurogranin, Visinin‐like protein, YKL‐40, and Synaptosome Associated Protein 25) across the clusters after adjusting for age, sex, and education. We compared gray matter density of each EOnonAD cluster to controls (n = 84) using voxel‐wise multiple linear regressions in SPM12, adjusting for age, sex, education, and intracranial volume.ResultScree plot using the pseudo‐T‐squared suggested three clusters. Cluster 1 (38/62, 61.3%) was characterized by having the mildest cognitive impairment in all domains. Cluster 2 (19/62, 30.6%) was characterized by more severe memory and language impairment. Cluster 3 (5/62, 8.1%) was characterized by more severe impairment in speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function (Table 1). Cluster 3 showed significantly higher NfL for both plasma (Cluster 1 vs 3, p<0.001; Cluster 2 vs 3, p < 0.004) and CSF (Cluster 1 vs 3, p = 0.001). Other biomarkers did not show significant difference (Table 1). Only Cluster 3 showed significant atrophy in the bilateral fronto‐parietal areas at p<0.01, uncorrected (Figure 1).ConclusionWe identified heterogeneity in cognitive patterns among amnestic EOnonAD individuals. Cluster 1 had mildest cognitive impairment; Cluster 2 had predominant impairment in memory and language; and Cluster 3 had predominant impairment in speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function, with significant fronto‐parietal atrophy and high NfL indicating active neurodegeneration.

AbstractBackgroundThe mapping between risk factors and biomarkers with cognitive performance and decline in the older adults is complex and varies significantly across different age and sex groups. Our goals were to (i) develop a machine learning (ML) model to predict baseline cognition and cognitive decline over a 5‐year follow‐up using only baseline assessments, and (ii) identify important modifiable and non‐modifiable predictors of cognitive decline across different age strata.MethodWe utilized longitudinal data from 2219 participants (mean age (SD): 70 (12) years, 49% male) from Mayo Clinic Study of Aging who had 43 features belonging to cardiovascular health, plasma, MRI (diffusion and structural), and lifestyle measures. Cognition was measured using a global cognition z‐score. We built ML models to predict baseline cognition and rate of cognitive decline over 5‐years (linear regression slopes over all individual followup measurements for each participant) using baseline assessments as inputs. We then built a model for each category separately and as a pooled model with all measures included, incorporating education and sex as demographic features in all models (Fig. 1). We applied a multi‐layer stack ensemble ML technique that utilized repeated k‐fold bagging to maximize accuracy. Importance of the top predictors were assessed in three age strata (55‐65 years (31%), 65‐80 years (46%), 80‐95 years (23%)).ResultThe pooled model explained the largest variance for prediction of baseline cognition and cognitive decline (Fig. 2). In individuals ≤80 years, lower NfL was most predictive of higher baseline cognition. A combination of imaging and plasma features predicted the 5‐year cognitive decline. Additionally, in individuals ≤65 years, diabetes and hypertension were important predictors of faster cognitive decline and in those >80, lower BMI and midlife physical/cognitive activity was an important predictor of faster cognitive decline (Fig. 3).ConclusionThe plasma model was best for baseline cognition prediction and imaging model was best for cognitive decline prediction. There was significant heterogeneity in important features across the age strata. In individuals >65 years, plasma GFAP was the most important predictor of cognitive decline. Our model allowed identification of key risk factors that predicted cognitive decline.

AbstractBackgroundIn EOAD, the localization of neurodegeneration is often more prominent in posterior lateral temporal, lateral and medial parietal, frontal, or occipital cortex relative to the medial and ventral temporal cortical localization of typical LOAD. Convergently, neuropathological investigations have identified a “hippocampal‐sparing” form of AD that is often present in younger patients. For these reasons, imaging biomarkers of neurodegeneration in EOAD, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) measures of atrophy, likely need to be different than those of neurodegeneration in typical LOAD. Although prior neuroimaging work has advanced our understanding of anatomical abnormalities in EOAD, these studies have included small samples, most composed of amnestic EOAD dementia and none focused on developing an MRI biomarker specific to EOAD. Such a disease‐signature MRI biomarker has been established and validated in LOAD dementia and has proven to be powerful in predicting progressive decline in people with MCI or who were cognitively unimpaired and in predicting molecular biomarker status. An a priori‐defined regional atrophy signature may also be helpful in constraining the analysis of MRI data in studies of putative disease‐modifying therapies.MethodLEADS is an observational study which includes annual MRI. In this analysis, we used FreeSurfer to define the sporadic EOAD atrophy signature in a small sample of MGH EOAD patients, and investigated its reproducibility in LEADS, as well as the magnitude of atrophy and its relationship to clinical measures.ResultThe EOAD signature is robustly reproducible across the two independent patient cohorts, with prominent atrophy in caudal lateral temporal cortex, inferior parietal lobule, and posterior cingulate and precuneus cortex, with relative sparing of medial temporal lobe structures. Comparing patients to controls, Cohen’s d effect sizes within various regions ranged from 0.99 to 1.98.ConclusionThis study demonstrates the specific cortical regions with most prominent atrophy in patients with sporadic EOAD; this signature of regional atrophy will be used to examine longitudinal change.

AbstractBackgroundSeveral studies suggest that premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy (PBO) is associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment and dementia; however, the underlying brain changes are not well understood. Animal studies suggest that long‐term ovarian hormone deprivation in rats is associated with reduced white matter integrity, but few studies have been conducted among women. We assessed the impact of age at PBO before age 50 years on white matter integrity in a community‐based cohort of older women.MethodParticipants included 1,011 women enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging (MCSA; 22 with PBO<40 years; 43 with PBO 40‐45 years; 39 with PBO 46‐49 years and 907 referent women). MCSA is a population‐based study of aging in Olmsted County, MN. PBO was abstracted from the medical records. Regional DTI metrics of fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) were investigated using the Johns Hopkins University Atlas. Linear regression was used to examine the association between PBO age group and z‐scores of either FA or MD after adjusting for age at imaging and APOE.ResultThere were no differences in age at study visit (median = 72 years), education, APOE E4 frequency, or vascular comorbidities between the 3 groups of women with a history of PBO or referent women. Women with PBO<40 years, compared to referent women, had lower FA and higher MD in the anterior corona radiata, genu of the corpus collosum, inferior fronto‐occipital fasciculus, superior occipital, and superior temporal white matter. Women with PBO<40 years also had lower inferior frontal white matter FA and higher posterior thalamic radiation MD. Women who underwent PBO between 40‐44 years or 45‐49 generally did not have significant changes in white matter integrity compared to referent women.ConclusionWomen who underwent premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy prior to the age of 40 years had reduced white matter integrity across multiple regions in later‐life. These results are important for the education of women at a low risk for ovarian cancer who are considering PBO for benign conditions.

AbstractBackgroundQuantified accelerated aging, or “age gap,” defined as the difference between a person’s estimated age using a biological measurement, such as a brain image, and their true age, has strong associations with multiple neurodegenerative etiologies. As an alternative to imaging‐based measurements, in this study we developed an age prediction model based on gait patterns and used this model to quantify accelerated aging as an indicator of cognitive impairment and predictor of future cognitive decline.MethodA database of 16,917 pressure sensitive walkway exams from 5,307 participants in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging was used to develop an age estimation model that included two main components. First, a novel dimensionality reduction and feature selection algorithm was used to extract gait features. Second, a regularized linear model was trained using these features to produce a sparse, clinically interpretable estimator. This model was used to calculate a gait age gap metric, which was tested for association with measures of cognitive impairment and future cognitive decline.ResultThe distributions of gait age gap in age‐matched participants defined as having no cognitive impairment (CU, n = 573), mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n = 520), or a clinical diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s (AD, n = 53) are shown in Fig 1a. A significant shift in the mean is observed between all three groups. Fig 1b. shows the distributions of baseline gait age gap values amongst individuals categorized by cognitive decline: stable CU (n = 644), MCI converters (n = 89), stable MCI (n = 78), and significant impairment converters (SI, n = 35). The baseline gait age gap in stable CU individuals was found to be significantly lower than in the already impaired or converter groups.ConclusionIn this study, we developed a model for estimating accelerated aging from gait variables in the form of a gait age gap metric. This metric was shown to be strongly associated with AD‐driven cognitive impairment as well as predictive of future cognitive decline. These results highlight the potential clinical utility of quantitative gait analysis in behavioral neurologic assessment of cognitive impairment in AD.

AbstractBackgroundEasily accessible and self‐administered cognitive assessments that can aide early identification of individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia are critical for timely intervention. Mayo Test Drive (MTD) is a remote, self‐administered, multi‐device compatible, web‐based cognitive assessment (Stricker et al., 2022). We investigated continuous associations between MTD and amyloid and tau PET biomarkers and compared the strength of association to PET biomarkers and in‐person cognitive measures.Method556 adults from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging participated (mean age = 70.6; mean education = 16.0 years; 50.7% female; 97.5% white). Participants were predominantly cognitively unimpaired (95.3%; 4.7% had a consensus diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment). Participants completed (1) brain amyloid and tau PET scans, (2) in‐person neuropsychological assessment including Mayo Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease Cognitive Composite (Mayo‐PACC) and Global‐z, and (3) remote MTD comprised of the Stricker Learning Span (SLS) and the Symbols test, which are combined into an MTD composite. Multiple regressions adjusted for age, sex, and education queried associations between imaging biomarkers [amyloid meta‐region of interest (ROI), tau meta‐ROI, and tau entorhinal cortex (EC)‐ROI)] and composite and subtest scores from remote and in‐person measures. Davidson‐Mackinnon J‐test compared R‐squared values of models with remote versus in‐person composites.ResultLower performances on MTD composite and Mayo‐PACC were associated with higher amyloid meta‐ROI (p’s<.05; Table 1). MTD composite was also negatively associated with tau meta‐ROI and EC‐ROI (p’s<.05). For memory measures, SLS sum of trials was negatively associated with tau meta‐ROI (p = .01) and EC‐ROI (p<.001) with no associations between AVLT sum of trials and PET (p’s≥.06; Table 2). Among processing speed/executive function measures, worse Trails B performance was associated with higher amyloid meta‐ROI (p<.001). Symbols and Digit Symbol Coding were not associated with PET (p’s≥.29). A multivariable model with MTD explained significantly less variance (p = .04) for amyloid meta‐ROI (adjusted R‐squared = 0.165) than a multivariable model with Mayo‐PACC (adjusted R‐squared = 0.176); remote and in‐person composite measures were comparable for other associations (p’s>.05).ConclusionMTD is associated with continuous measures of amyloid and tau PET biomarkers of AD, demonstrating criterion validity for MTD. Several associations were comparable to relationships between gold‐standard in‐person neuropsychological tests and imaging biomarkers.

AbstractBackgroundBrief self‐administered cognitive assessments deployed remotely and combined with plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are well suited to assess clinical symptoms and underlying biology in large‐scale decentralized studies. We investigated whether associations of self‐administered cognitive measures and plasma biomarkers were comparable to associations of in‐person cognitive measures and plasma biomarkers.MethodParticipants included 327 adults from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (mean age = 70.8; 48% female; mean education = 16.0 years; 96.9% white). Most (94.5%) were cognitively unimpaired; 5.5% had consensus diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment. Participants completed Mayo Test Drive (MTD; Stricker et al., 2022), a remote, self‐administered, multi‐device compatible web‐based cognitive assessment comprised of the Stricker Learning Span (SLS) and Symbols test that are combined into a MTD composite. Participants also completed in‐person neuropsychological assessment (global‐z; Mayo Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease Cognitive Composite [Mayo‐PACC]) and fasting venipuncture. Plasma was assayed via HD‐X simoa platform for amyloid‐beta (Aβ)‐42 and Aβ‐40 to create an Aβ42/40 ratio, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) using the N4PE Quanterix kit as well as phosphorylated‐tau protein 181 (p‐tau181). P‐tau181, GFAP, and NfL were log10‐transformed. Multiple regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, and education examined associations between plasma biomarkers and composite and subtest scores from remote and in‐person measures. Davidson‐Mackinnon J‐test compared R‐squared values of models with remote versus in‐person composites.ResultLower performances on MTD, global‐z, and Mayo‐PACC (Table 1) were associated with higher GFAP (p’s≤.02), NfL (p’s≤.003), and p‐tau181 (p’s = .04). For memory, worse SLS and AVLT sum of trials were associated with higher GFAP (p’s≤.01) and NfL (p’s≤.03). For processing speed/executive function, worse Symbols and Trails B were associated with higher p‐tau181 (p’s≤.02). Worse Trails B and Digit Symbol Coding were associated with higher NfL (p’s≤.02), and worse Digit Symbol Coding was associated with lower Aβ42/40 (p = 0.03; Table 2). A multivariable model with MTD explained significantly more variance (p = .04) for NfL (adjusted R‐squared = 0.461) than a multivariable model with Mayo‐PACC (adjusted R‐squared = 0.447); remote and in‐person composite measures were comparable for other associations (p’s>.05).ConclusionRemote and in‐person composite measures showed comparable associations with AD‐related plasma biomarkers, supporting MTD’s criterion validity.

AbstractBackgroundMulticentric initiatives to study brain cognition in the elderly offers us a unique collection of brain imaging data accompanied by detailed neuroclinical and neuropsychological evaluations. U.S. POINTER and LatAm‐FINGERS, part of the World Wide FINGERS, are both large‐scale investigations of lifestyle interventions and its impact on cognitive function. These large‐scale detailed data may offer an unprecedented opportunity to compare diverse populations.MethodBaseline MRI of subjects from multiple US centers (POINTER‐US), distributed in 5 geographical regions, and from 9 latin‐american countries (LatAm‐FINGERS). The protocols vary from basic (3D T1, 3D FLAIR,T2* GRE, Cor T2 hippocampus, DWI) to advanced which also included ASL, rs‐FMRI and DTI. Demographic information and clinical, cognitive and neuropsychological assessment were also included.ResultMRI data was collected from 662 participants in the United States (about 65% of the total anticipated U.S. POINTER neuroimaging sample) and from 542 subjects from 9 countries in latin‐america (about 80% of the total anticipated LatAm‐FINGERS neuroimaging sample), with around 1200 participants scanned (table1).All participants have 3D T1, 3D FLAIR, T2* GRE images and either DWI or DTI images.Comparative demographics from the 2 datasets shows similar mean age, a predominance of females, and slight differences in education (table 2). This will allow us to compare multiethnic and multicultural volumetric and functional brain MRI information, as well as disease markers, associated with thorough neurological and clinical assessment. Reasons for not acquiring MRI were mainly due to claustrophobia or scanner unavailability.ConclusionThis is an exceptional opportunity to have comparative large‐scale databases, with anatomical and functional brain imaging from different populations, allowing us to study real world diverse brain data and better understand its relationships with demographics, health and risk characteristics, and cognition.