Neylan, Thomas C.

AbstractBackgroundIn this pilot study, the diagnostic agreement for sleep biomarker‐based neurodegenerative disorder (NDD) risk probabilities was evaluated in patients with Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD), Lewy body disease (LBD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and controls (CG) with a Mini‐Mental State Exam scores ≥28.MethodsSleep biomarkers recorded with the Sleep Profiler (Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc.) were used as inputs to a 4‐class machine learning algorithm trained to assign NDD risk probabilities to AD=27, LBD=19, isolated REM sleep behavior disorder=15, and CG=58. Input variables included age, time‐REM, non‐REM hypertonia, autonomic‐activation index, spindle‐duration, atypical‐N3, time‐supine, sleep‐efficiency, relative‐theta, and theta/alpha. Distributions of NDD risk were then assigned to AD=37, LBD=19, MCI=71, and CG=106 records.Records with CG output probabilities ≥70% were labeled Probably‐Normal, and from 45‐70% Likely‐Normal with indications of a NDD added when the LBD, AD or prodromal synucleinopathy (pSYN) risks exceeded approximately 25%. Similar thresholds were used to assign Likely‐ or Probably‐ LBD, AD, pSYN, or Mixed based on the group probabilities. Likely‐Normal with indications consistent with the diagnosis trended toward agreement.ResultsThe proportions of each group with classifications consistent with the diagnosis or trended toward agreement were CG=86%, MCI=75%, LBD=79%, and AD=87%.In the CG group, NDD risk assignments were Probably‐Normal=68% and Likely‐Normal with NDD indications=18%, Likely‐NDD=10%, and Probable‐NDD=4%.The MCI group was assigned Probable‐NDD=38% (AD=26%, Mixed=10%, LBD/pSYN=2%), Likely‐NDD=17% (AD=7%, Mixed=6%, LBD=3%, pSYN=1%), Likely‐Normal with indications=20% (AD=9%, pSYN=7%, Mixed=4%) and Probably‐Normal=25%The LBD group’s assigned risks consistent with the diagnoses included Probable‐NDD=74% and Likely‐Normal with pSYN indications=6% but included inconsistencies from Probable‐AD=5%, Likely‐Normal with AD indications=5%, and Probably‐Normal=11%.AD group’s consistent risk classifications included Probable‐NDD=60%, Likely‐NDD=11%, Likely‐Normal with AD/Mixed indications=13% and countered by inconsistencies from Probable‐LBD/pSYN=8%, Likely‐Normal with pSYN indications=3%, and Probably‐Normal=5%.ConclusionsConsistencies between the diagnoses and assigned NDD risks agreements exceeded 75% in all four groups. Studies are underway to confirm the test‐retest reliability and/or evaluate NDD risk probabilities in other patient populations.Support: NIH grants R44AG050326, R44AG054256, RO1AG060477, R33AG064271, ULRR024150, R34AG056639.

Abstract Biomarkers that aid in early detection of neurodegeneration are needed to enable early symptomatic treatment and enable identification of people who may benefit from neuroprotective interventions. Increasing evidence suggests that sleep biomarkers may be useful, given the bi-directional relationship between sleep and neurodegeneration and the prominence of sleep disturbances and altered sleep architectural characteristics in several neurodegenerative disorders. This study aimed to demonstrate that sleep can accurately characterize specific neurodegenerative disorders (NDD). A four-class machine-learning algorithm was trained using age and nine sleep biomarkers from patients with clinically-diagnosed manifest and prodromal NDDs, including Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD = 27), Lewy body dementia (LBD = 18), and isolated REM sleep behavior disorder (iRBD = 15), as well as a control group (CG = 58). The algorithm was validated in a total of 381 recordings, which included the training data set plus an additional AD = 10, iRBD = 18, Parkinson disease without dementia (PD = 29), mild cognitive impairment (MCI = 78) and CG = 128. Test-retest consistency was then assessed in LBD = 10, AD = 9, and CG = 46. The agreement between the NDD profiles and their respective clinical diagnoses exceeded 75% for the AD, LBD, and CG, and improved when NDD participants classified Likely Normal with NDD indications consistent with their clinical diagnosis were considered. Profiles for iRBD, PD and MCI participants were consistent with the heterogeneity of disease severities, with the majority of overt disagreements explained by normal sleep characterization in 27% of iRBD, 21% of PD, and 26% of MCI participants. For test-retest assignments, the same or similar NDD profiles were obtained for 88% of LBD, 86% in AD, and 98% of CG participants. The potential utility for NDD subtyping based on sleep biomarkers demonstrates promise and requires further prospective development and validation in larger NDD cohorts.

Abstract Introduction n this cross-validation study, the distributions of sleep biomarker-based neurodegenerative disorder (NDD) risk were evaluated across a spectrum of NDD patients and presumed controls which were independent of the model development dataset. Methods Variables that included age, time-REM, non-REM hypertonia, autonomic-activation index, spindle-duration, atypical-N3, time-supine, sleep-efficiency, relative-theta, and theta/alpha obtained with Sleep Profiler were used to train a 4-class machine learning algorithm that generated probabilities of NDD risk for the groups: Alzheimer’s dementia (AD), Lewy body disorder (LBD), prodromal synucleinopathy (pSYN based on REM sleep behavior disorder patients), and controls (CG). Records with CG output probabilities >70% were labeled Probably-normal, and from 45-70% Likely-normal with indications of a NDD added when the LBD, AD or pSYN risks exceeded approximately 25%. Similar thresholds were used to assign Likely- or Probable- LBD, AD, pSYN or Mixed based on the group probabilities. This cross-validation study was designed to use datasets that were independent of those used to train the classification algorithm. Thus, NDD risk distributions were evaluated in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI=71), Parkinson’s disease (PD=16), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP=21) and control subjects (NC=41) with Mini-Mental State Exam scores>28 and/or normal for MCI by Petersen criteria. Results In the MCI group, NDD risk assignments were Probable-AD=26%, -Mixed=10%, -LBD=1%, Likely-AD= 7%, -Mixed=6%, -LBD=3%, -pSYN=1%, Likely-Normal indications-AD=9%, -pSYN=7%, -Mixed=4%, and Probably-Normal=26% In the PSP group, Probable-LBD=43%, -Mixed=29% and -pSYN=4%, Likely-Mixed=10%, Likely-Normal indications AD=10%, and Probably-Normal=4%. In the PD group, Probable-LBD=13%, -pSYN=13%, -AD=6%, Likely-Mixed=19%, -pSYN=6%, Likely-Normal Indications-pSYN=19%, -AD=12%, Likely-Normal=6% and Probably-Normal=6% In the NC group, 83% were assigned minimal NDD risk with Probably-Normal=70%, Likely-Normal plus indications=13%, but with Likely NDD=13% and Probable NDD=4%. Conclusion NDD risks were disbursed in a manner consistent with the range of severities expected In MCI and PD groups, with 25% exhibiting relatively normal sleep patterns. Over 70% of the PSP patients exhibited probable NDD risk, with patterns similar to those with LBD. The NC NDD risk distributions were consistent with those assigned to the CG used for model development. Support (if any) NIH grants R44AG050326, R44AG054256, RO1AG060477, R33AG064271, ULRR024150, R34AG056639.

Abstract Introduction In this pilot study, the diagnostic agreement for sleep biomarker-based neurodegenerative disorder (NDD) risk probabilities was evaluated in patients with Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD), Lewy Body disease (LBD), and isolated REM sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) and controls with a Mini-Mental State Exam scores>28. Methods Sleep biomarkers recorded with the Sleep Profiler (Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc) were used as inputs to a 4-class machine learning algorithm trained to assign NDD risk probabilities to AD=27, LBD=19, iRBD=15 and controls (CG=58). Input variables included age, time-REM, non-REM hypertonia, autonomic-activation index, spindle-duration, atypical-N3, time-supine, sleep-efficiency, relative-theta, and theta/alpha. Records with CG output probabilities >70% were labeled Probably-normal, and from 45-70% Likely-normal with indications of a NDD added when the LBD, AD or prodromal synucleinopathy (pSYN) risks exceeded approximately 25%. Similar thresholds were used to assign Likely- or Probable- LBD, AD, or pSYN based each of the group probabilities. Classification accuracies were evaluated in AD=37, LBD=19, iRBD=19 and CG=61 records. Longitudinal test-retest reliabilities were assessed for CG (n=45, range 8-56 months), and after six-months for LBD (n=10) and AD (n=9). Results In the AD group, NDD risk assignments were consistent with diagnoses=85%, with Probable-NDD=59%, Likely-NDD=11%, Normal plus AD/Mixed indications=15%, but with 5%=Probably-normal. In the LBD group, assigned risks were consistent with the diagnosis=79%, with Probable-NDD=74%, Normal with pSYN indications=5%, but with 11%=Probably-normal. In the iRBD group, Probable-NDD=42%, Normal plus pSYN indications=26% and Probably-normal=32%. In the CG group, 89% were assigned minimal NDD risks with Probably-normal=67%, Normal plus indications=22%, but with Likely NDD=8% and Probable NDD=3%. The AD test-retest reliability showed the same NDD classifications=78%, with slightly increasing=11% and decreased=11%. In the LBD group, the same NDD classifications were achieved=80%, with trending equivalence=10%, and decreasing severity=20%. The CG test-retest reliability showed the same NDD classifications=76%, with trending equivalence=22%, and increased severity=2%. Conclusion Consistencies between the diagnoses and assigned NDD risks and test-retest classification agreements were approximately 80% in the AD, LBD, and CG groups. In the iRBD group, the NDD risks were disbursed consistent with the range of expected severities. These results needed to be cross-validated in independent NDD datasets. Support (if any) NIH grants R44AG050326, R44AG054256, RO1AG060477, R33AG064271, ULRR024150, R34AG056639.

Abstract Introduction In this pilot study, sleep biomarker-based neurodegenerative disorder (NDD) risk was assessed in a clinical cohort of patients diagnosed with varying severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods Consecutive in-home multi-night Sleep Profiler records from a community sleep clinic were screened for age >54 years old. Cases with comorbid restless leg syndrome, hypersomnia, missing apnea-hypopnea indexes (AHI), AHI< 5 or single-night recordings were excluded. The 67 remaining records were 40% female, ages 63 + 7.4 years and up to 84 years old. NDD risk was assigned using a machine-learning algorithm combining age and nine sleep biomarkers to assign group probabilities: for Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy Body disease, prodromal synucleinopathy and controls (CG). Sleep biomarkers included: time-REM, non-REM hypertonia, autonomic-activation index, spindle-duration, atypical-N3, time-supine, sleep-efficiency, relative-theta, and theta/alpha. Those with CG probability score >70% were classified as “Probably-normal”. Those with CG probability between 45 - 70% were classified as “Likely-normal”. Insomnia severity >14 and a PHQ 9 > 5 were used as cutoffs for clinical insomnia and depression. Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to evaluate group differences. Results This cohort had 37% mild, 34% moderate, and 29% severe OSA. Self-reported comorbid insomnia and depression were present in 43%. Seventy-three percent of patients were classified as “Probably-normal”, 16% “Likely-normal”, 11% “Likely-NDD” or “Probable-NDD”. The “Probably-normal” group was younger than the rest of the cohort (62 + 6.2 years vs. 68 + 8.6 years, p< 0.01). Of those classified as “Probably-normal” (n=49), OSA was mild in 16, moderate in 17 and severe in 16. Mean AHI trended higher in the “Probably-normal” group than in those with elevated NDD risk (29 + 23.9 vs. 19 + 13.6 events/h, p=0.085). Conclusion Approximately 89% of the clinical cohort was classified as “Probably-normal” or “Likely-normal”. NDD risk was age-dependent. Interactions between OSA severity and NDD risk were not apparent in these findings, possibly related to group-wide effects. NDD risk, as measured by this model, did not appear to be adversely biased by untreated OSA. These results suggest a need for longitudinal studies to compare NDD risk in untreated OSA versus controls without sleep disordered breathing. Support (if any) NIH grants R44AG050326, R44AG054256, RO1AG060477, R33AG064271, ULRR024150, and R34AG056639.

Abstract Introduction In this pilot study, we explored sleep biomarker risk probabilities for different neurodegenerative disorder (NDD) phenotypes across a spectrum of NDD patients, compared with controls. Methods We analyzed a cohort of patients with different NDD phenotypes who underwent in-home recordings with Sleep Profiler, including Lewy body disease (LBD=20), Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD=29), and isolated REM sleep behavior disorder (iRBD=19). Controls with an MMSE>28 (CG=61) and patients with Parkinson disease (PD=16) and mild-cognitive-impairment (MCI=41) also participated. We developed a machine-learning classifier that assigned NDD probabilities for LBD, AD, iRBD, and CG. The input variables included: time-REM, non-REM hypertonia, autonomic-activation index, spindle-duration, atypical-N3, time-supine, sleep-efficiency, relative-theta, and theta/alpha. Probabilities >50% were assigned “likely”, and for CG>=50% and a NDD group probability 20-50%, the assignment was normal “plus”. Probability assignments were then made for the NDD and CG groups, then further applied to the PD and MCI patient groups. Results The CG group participants were assigned Normal-Likely=74%, Normal+AD=11%, Normal+iRBD=5%, iRBD-Likely=5%, and AD-Likely=5%. LBD patient distributions were LBD-Likely=70%, iRBD-Likely=5%, AD-Likely=5%, Normal+LBD=5%, Normal+iRBD=5%, Normal+AD=5%, and Normal-Likely=5%. AD group distributions were AD-Likely=71%, LBD-Likely=4%, Normal+AD=14%, Normal+iRBD=4%, Normal-Likely=7%. iRBD patients were characterized with iRBD-Likely=37%, LBD-Likely=5%, AD-Likely=5%, Normal+iRBD=27%, Normal-Likely=26%. PD patients were assigned iRBD-Likely=29%, LBD-likely=14%, AD-Likely=14%, Normal+iRBD=21%, Normal+AD=7%, Normal-Likely=14%. MCI distributions were AD-Likely=45%, LBD-Likely=8%, iRBD-Likely=5%, Normal+AD=21%, Normal-Likely=13%. Conclusions For LBD, AD and CG groups, correct risk assignments were >70% while gross misclassifications were <10%. Classification patterns for PD, MCI and iRBD were disbursed in a manner consistent with the range of severities expected in each group.

Abstract Introduction Atypical N3 sleep (AN3=delta waves with limited theta and sigma) has been associated with ICU delirium and sepsis and averaged 25% of sleep time in Japanese ICU patients. We were interested in exploring whether AN3 might be a marker of cerebral dysfunction in ambulatory patients across a range of neurodegenerative disorders, including those with a dementia diagnosis. Methods After ethics review and with informed consent, patients with Lewy body disease (DLB/PDD: n=20,male=90%,age=70 + 6.2), Alzheimers disease dementia (AD: n=29,male=79%,age=75 + 6.7), Parkinson disease (PD: n=16,male=69%,age=67 + 8.7), mild cognitive impairment (MCI: n=41,male=63%,age=70 + 8.5), isolated REM sleep behavior disorder (iRBD: n=19,male=74%,age=64 + 9.6) and a control group (CG: n=61,male=47%,age=65 + 8.3) were studied with the Sleep Profiler and auto-detected AN3 computed. Between-group comparisons were assessed with Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests. Results The mean percentages of sleep time with AN3 were significantly greater in DLB/PDD (8 + 12.3) vs. PD (4 + 10.8), AD (2 + 3.7), MCI (2 + 2.3), iRBD (1 + 1.6), and CG (1 + 2.4)(all p<0.02). The proportions of records with abnormal AN3 (>5% of sleep time) were significantly greater in those with DLB/PDD=35% vs. MCI=10%, iRBD=5% and CG=5% (all p<0.05), but not AD=17% and PD=13%. Conclusions Further investigations are needed to determine if abnormal AN3 may be a biomarker that distinguishes patients with Lewy body spectrum diseases from alternative pathologies and/or could be helpful in monitoring the side effects of CNS-acting medications