Citations

Introduction: Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a devastating disease that commonly results in early onset dementia, yet its rarity and heterogeneity limit large-scale research and clinical trials. Remote monitoring via low-burden digital health tools may overcome these barriers. We evaluated clinical utility of passive smartphone monitoring in FTLD using a multi-domain mobile assessment platform. Methods: Participants were 567 adults (53% clinically normal, 21% prodromal FTLD, 26% symptomatic FTLD) who completed an in-person study visit and downloaded the ALLFTD Mobile App on their personal smartphones. The app delivered unsupervised cognitive tests and passively collected continuous data on battery percentage (proxy for smartphone use) and step count. Longitudinal follow-up included smartphone monitoring and annual in-person study visits. Primary analyses examined associations between passive smartphone features and markers of disease severity at baseline and longitudinally, and tested whether passive features added incremental value beyond app-based cognitive testing. Results: Passive smartphone features were feasible to collect and showed excellent reliability with <2 weeks of monitoring (ICCs>0.9). Features capturing smartphone use and movement demonstrated sensitivity to gold-standard clinical measures of disease severity both at baseline and longitudinally. A classification model combining passive features, the app-based cognitive composite score, and demographics detected longitudinal functional decline (AUC=0.89); passive features alone (AUC=0.84) performed comparably to a cognitive screener (AUC=0.85). Discussion: Passive smartphone monitoring is a valid, zero-burden measure of disease severity and progression in FTLD that adds modest incremental value beyond app-based cognitive testing. Findings support its use as a scalable digital endpoint in longitudinal FTLD research.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Research into cognitive dispersion – a cognitive process score measuring the intra‐individual variability (IIV) across a single testing session – suggests utility in neurodegenerative populations. Given widespread deficits observed in sporadic early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD), however, it is unclear if examining cognitive dispersion shows benefit in this condition. METHODS A total of 309 participants (188 amyloid‐positive EOAD, 43 amyloid‐negative early‐onset dementia [EOnonAD], 78 cognitively normal [CN]) completed neuropsychological testing twice over 12 months. Dispersion‐related differences among groups were assessed, as was cognitive dispersion's capacity to predict domain‐specific cognitive trajectories, and its convergence with imaging biomarkers. RESULTS EOAD participants displayed higher cognitive dispersion than EOnonAD participants, and associations with EOAD‐specific biomarkers. Additionally, cognitive dispersion was associated with 12‐month reliable change across several cognitive domains. DISCUSSION These preliminary results examine cognitive dispersion in sporadic EOAD. When used with baseline cognitive performance, cognitive dispersion measures may enrich future clinical trials in EOAD by enhancing treatment monitoring over time.

Abstract The growing availability of large-scale biomarker datasets has allowed data-driven methods to characterize Alzheimer’s disease biological heterogeneity. However, most prior studies have focused on cohorts of late-onset amnestic cases, leaving early-onset Alzheimer’s disease underexplored. We aimed to characterize tau-PET-based subtypes through a robust data-driven approach in the Longitudinal Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study. Baseline [18F]Flortaucipir PET scans from 365 amyloid-PET-positive participants with sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease were quantified in the left and right medial temporal, lateral temporal, occipital, parietal, and frontal cortices. Tau PET values were z-scored against 85 amyloid-PET-negative cognitively normal age-matched participants and fitted into Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn)—an unsupervised clustering algorithm that simultaneously models subtypes and progression from cross-sectional data. The derived subtypes were subsequently characterized by baseline and longitudinal clinical, cognitive, MRI, tau and amyloid PET features. We identified three tau-PET-based subtypes: on average, Subtype 1/Typical (n = 144, 40%) showed a predominant bilateral temporoparietal pattern typical of Alzheimer’s disease. Subtype 2/Left temporal (n = 111, 31%) showed predominant left temporal binding. Subtype 3/Posterior (n = 104, 29%) showed early and permeating occipitoparietal involvement. Subtypes did not differ in demographics or global amyloid burden, but were relatively more enriched for specific clinical presentations: S1/Typical for amnestic presentations, S2/Left Temporal for primary progressive aphasia, and S3/Posterior for posterior cortical atrophy. Baseline tau PET subtypes aligned with cortical atrophy patterns and domain-specific cognitive impairment. When follow-up tau PET scans were fitted to SuStaIn trained on baseline data, 85.6% (n = 172/201) of participants retained the same subtype classification, indicating subtype temporal stability, and progressed within subtypes by 0.56 ± 0.70 SuStaIn stage/year. Longitudinal voxel-wise linear mixed-effects modelling revealed tau accumulation patterns for each subtype in regions relatively spared at baseline: occipital lobe accumulation predominated in S1/Typical, bilateral frontal and right temporal in S2/Left Temporal, and bilateral frontotemporal lobes in S3/Posterior. All subtypes showed longitudinal increases in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes, but with slower worsening in S3/Posterior compared with the other subtypes. Our findings reveal robust subtypes in sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease characterized by distinct spatiotemporal tau patterns that parallel differences in clinical presentations and trajectories of neurodegeneration. These subtypes extend beyond traditional clinical syndromes and support a more nuanced framework for individualized prognosis and care. Incorporating tau PET subtyping into clinical trial design could enable more targeted therapeutic approaches for this younger population.

Abstract INTRODUCTION : Despite expanding use of plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD), minimal examination has been undertaken in early‐onset AD (EOAD). Prior analyses assessed criterion and convergent validity of common plasma biomarkers in a well‐characterized sample with sporadic EOAD. METHODS : Plasma amyloid beta (Aβ) 42/40, tau phosphorylated at threonine 231 (p‐tau231), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light change (NfL) levels were obtained for 189 EOAD, 52 early‐onset non‐AD (EOnonAD), and 83 cognitively normal (CN) participants. Diagnostic group differences, convergence with imaging biomarkers, and the capacity to predict specific cognitive domains were investigated. RESULTS : After controlling for cognitive status, EOAD participants exhibited more pathologic levels of Aβ42/40, p‐tau231, and GFAP relative to EOnonAD participants. However, NfL displayed the greatest sensitivity to non‐amnestic cognitive impairment across the sample. DISCUSSION : These results establish criterion and convergent validity of plasma biomarkers in sporadic EOAD and highlight complementary roles that AD‐specific and non‐specific plasma markers may play across the course of AD care.

INTRODUCTION Recent work has identified unique cognitive profiles for early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) relative to late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), however, examination has been limited in determining whether the association between age and cognitive severity at presentation also differs across conditions. METHODS A series of linear spline regression models was conducted across baseline cognitive data from 325 EOAD and 314 LOAD participants, after accounting for education, sex, and apolipoprotein ε4 status. RESULTS Significant differences existed in the relationship between baseline age and cognitive performance between EOAD and LOAD samples for Processing Speed/Attention, Executive Functioning, and Episodic Immediate Memory. Younger participants from both EOAD and LOAD groups performed disproportionately worse on non‐amnestic cognitive domains, with this occurring to a greater extent in EOAD than LOAD. DISCUSSION In the age of disease‐modifying treatments, results highlight the importance of assessing for cognitive declines in individuals starting much earlier than age 65. Highlights Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) participants each displayed cognitive impairments relative to same‐aged peers across most domains. Both groups displayed positive relationships between impairment among non‐amnestic cognitive domains and baseline age. This relationship displayed a significantly greater effect in EOAD than LOAD, with domains of Processing Speed/Attention and Executive Functioning skills being the most pronounced. Of those participants developing AD, age displayed a disproportionate impact on their symptom onset.

Abstract Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) and Late-onset AD (LOAD) differ in clinical presentations and rates of progression. We aimed to compare baseline and longitudinal tau PET burden, and their relationship with clinical variables in amyloid-PET positive, cognitively impaired participants from the Longitudinal Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study (EOAD; n=390) and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (LOAD; n=211). Patients with EOAD showed higher baseline tau PET retention, broader neuroanatomical involvement and faster accumulation rates over time compared to LOAD, after adjusting for amyloid load and clinical stage. Tau PET showed stronger correlations with baseline amyloid burden and clinical measures of global cognition and function in EOAD than LOAD. We conclude that earlier age of onset in AD is linked to a more aggressive tauopathy, which in turn is a primary driver of clinical decline. These findings suggest that optimal therapeutic targets and strategies may differ between EOAD and LOAD. One Sentence Summary Younger patients with Alzheimer’s disease show more aggressive tau spread, suggesting age of onset defines distinct disease pathways with key clinical implications.

Abstract Background The Alzheimer's disease (AD) Braak staging is a key framework for classifying tau pathology progression in AD based on histopathological post‐mortem brain examinations. However, adapting it to PET imaging can be challenging due to differences in tracer uptake patterns and binding properties, which affect sensitivity, specificity, and regional staging. This study compares Braak staging across four tau PET tracers: Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620, and RO948. Methods We assessed 90 participants across the AD spectrum (46 CU, 31 MCI, 13 dementia; mean age 66.1 ± 7.8) using Aβ PET and four tau PET tracers: (Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620, and RO948). Braak positivity was defined based on Aβ− CU individuals (mean +2.5 SD, SUVR). To evaluate systematic bias and agreement between tracers, we computed pairwise differences at corresponding Braak stage estimates and applied the Bland‐Altman method to assess mean bias and limits of agreement. Additionally, Tau PET Braak region trajectories were modeled as functions of Aβ burden (Centiloid scale) using the Lowess method. Results Braak stage trajectories as a function of Aβ differ depending on the tracer and the sequential order of abnormality is highly variable. For instance, while for MK6240, RO948 and PI2620, Braak I is the first region to became abnormal, for Flortaucipir the earliest region to became abnormal is Braak IV (Figure 1). This variable pattern of abnormality impacts in the concordance of Braak staging between tracers with the highest Braak staging agreement resulting in concordance levels of approximately 70%. The highest levels of agreement between tracers usually happen at Braak 0 or Braak IV‐V, with intermediate stages showing very low concordance (Figure 2). The Bland‐Altman analysis identified wide limits of agreement, suggesting high variability and high tracer‐specific differences (Figure 3). On the other hand, it also identified that mean differences between tracers were small, indicating minimal systematic bias. Conclusion These preliminary findings reveal discrepancies in Braak staging when comparing Flortaucipir, MK6240, PI2620 and RO948. These findings suggest that while the tracers provide comparable stages on average, they may not be fully interchangeable in individual cases.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The genetic basis of sporadic early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) remains largely unknown, prompting evaluation of late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) polygenic risk in EOAD. METHODS A LOAD polygenic score (PGS) was calculated in the Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS) and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study and tested for associations with AD risk, cognitive performance, and imaging and fluid biomarkers. RESULTS Though PGS was elevated in LOAD and EOAD, it was not a significant predictor of EOAD adjusting for APOE ε4 carrier status and was not associated with age of EOAD onset ( p = 0.106) or with cognitive performance ( p = 0.417). In LEADS, greater LOAD PGS was associated with differences in neuroimaging and fluid biomarkers, including elevated synaptosomal‐associated protein 25 (SNAP‐25) ( p = 2.3 × 10 −5 ). DISCUSSION While LOAD polygenic risk contributed minimally to EOAD onset and cognitive dysfunction, PGS association with fluid biomarkers in LEADS suggests a role for LOAD polygenic risk in EOAD pathophysiology. Highlights LOAD PGSs were elevated in both LOAD and EOAD compared to controls; however, LOAD PGS did not significantly predict EOAD risk, age at onset, or cognitive performance independent of APOE ε4 in the LEADS. Higher LOAD PGS was associated with lower amyloid PET Centiloids (less brain amyloid deposition) as well as lower CSF biomarker Aβ42 in LEADS (proxy marker suggesting higher brain amyloid deposition) in LEADS; these contradictory findings support the need for larger studies to further investigate whether LOAD PGS is associated with increased amyloid deposition in EOAD. Higher LOAD PGS was also associated with higher levels of CSF synaptosomal‐associated protein 25 (SNAP‐25), a key component of the SNARE complex, suggesting that LOAD genetic factors may contribute to dysregulation of synaptic transmission and/or pathological protein aggregation in EOAD.