Dataset Information

Prevalence of Biologically vs Clinically Defined Alzheimer Spectrum Entities Using the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association Research Framework.

ABSTRACT: A National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) workgroup recently published a research framework in which Alzheimer disease is defined by neuropathologic or biomarker evidence of β-amyloid plaques and tau tangles and not by clinical symptoms. To estimate the sex- and age-specific prevalence of 3 imaging biomarker-based definitions of the Alzheimer disease spectrum from the NIA-AA research framework and to compare these entities with clinically defined diagnostic entities commonly linked with Alzheimer disease. The Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) is a population-based cohort study of cognitive aging in Olmsted County, Minnesota. The MCSA in-person participants (n = 4660) and passively ascertained (ie, through the medical record rather than in-person) individuals with dementia (n = 553) aged 60 to 89 years were included. Subsets underwent amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) (n = 1524) or both amyloid and tau PET (n = 576). Therefore, this study included 3 nested cohorts examined between November 29, 2004, and June 5, 2018. Data were analyzed between February 19, 2018, and March 26, 2019. The sex- and age-specific prevalence of the following 3 biologically defined diagnostic entities was estimated: Alzheimer continuum (abnormal amyloid regardless of tau status), Alzheimer pathologic change (abnormal amyloid but normal tau), and Alzheimer disease (abnormal amyloid and tau). These were compared with the prevalence of 3 clinically defined diagnostic groups (mild cognitive impairment or dementia, dementia, and clinically defined probable Alzheimer disease). The median (interquartile range) age was 77 (72-83) years in the clinical cohort (n = 5213 participants), 77 (70-83) years in the amyloid PET cohort (n = 1524 participants), and 77 (69-83) years in the tau PET cohort (n = 576 participants). There were roughly equal numbers of women and men. The prevalence of all diagnostic entities (biological and clinical) increased rapidly with age, with the exception of Alzheimer pathologic change. The prevalence of biological Alzheimer disease was greater than clinically defined probable Alzheimer disease for women and men. Among women, these values were 10% (95% CI, 6%-14%) vs 1% (95% CI, 1%-1%) at age 70 years and 33% (95% CI, 25%-41%) vs 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%) at age 85 years (P < .001). Among men, these values were 9% (95% CI, 5%-12%) vs 1% (95% CI, 0%-1%) at age 70 years and 31% (95% CI, 24%-38%) vs 9% (95% CI, 8%-11%) at age 85 years (P < .001). The only notable difference by sex was a greater prevalence of the mild cognitive impairment or dementia clinical category among men than women. Results of this study suggest that biologically defined Alzheimer disease is more prevalent than clinically defined probable Alzheimer disease at any age and is 3 times more prevalent at age 85 years among both women and men. This difference is mostly driven by asymptomatic individuals with biological Alzheimer disease. These findings illustrate the magnitude of the consequences on public health that potentially exist by intervening with disease-specific treatments to prevent symptom onset.

SUBMITTER: Jack CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6632154 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) encompasses a group of neurodevelopmental conditions diagnosed solely on the basis of behavioral assessments that reveal social deficits. Progress has been made in understanding its genetic underpinnings, but most ASD-associated genetic variants, which include copy number variants (CNVs) and mutations in ASD-risk genes, account for no more than 1 % of ASD cases. This high level of genetic heterogeneity leads to challenges obtaining and interpreting genetic testing in clinical settings. The traditional definition of syndromic ASD is a disorder with a clinically defined pattern of somatic abnormalities and a neurobehavioral phenotype that may include ASD. Most have a known genetic cause. Examples include fragile X syndrome and tuberous sclerosis complex. We propose dividing syndromic autism into the following two groups: (i) ASD that occurs in the context of a clinically defined syndrome-recognizing these disorders depends on the familiarity of the clinician with the features of the syndrome, and the diagnosis is typically confirmed by targeted genetic testing (eg, mutation screening of FMR1); (ii) ASD that occurs as a feature of a molecularly defined syndrome-for this group of patients, ASD-associated variants are identified by genome-wide testing that is not hypothesis driven (eg, microarray, whole exome sequencing). These ASD groups cannot be easily clinically defined because patients with a given variant have variable somatic abnormalities (dysmorphism and birth defects). In this article, we review common diagnoses from the above categories and suggest a testing strategy for patients, guided by determining whether the individual has essential or complex ASD; patients in the latter group have multiple morphologic anomalies on physical examination. Finally, we recommend that the syndromic versus nonsyndromic designation ultimately be replaced by classification of ASD according to its genetic etiology, which will inform about the associated spectrum and penetrance of neurobehavioral and somatic manifestations.

Project description:Breast cancer is commonly classified into intrinsic molecular subtypes. Standard gene centering is routinely done prior to molecular subtyping, but it can produce inaccurate classifications when the distribution of clinicopathological characteristics in the study cohort differs from that of the training cohort used to derive the classifier.We propose a subgroup-specific gene-centering method to perform molecular subtyping on a study cohort that has a skewed distribution of clinicopathological characteristics relative to the training cohort. On such a study cohort, we center each gene on a specified percentile, where the percentile is determined from a subgroup of the training cohort with clinicopathological characteristics similar to the study cohort. We demonstrate our method using the PAM50 classifier and its associated University of North Carolina (UNC) training cohort. We considered study cohorts with skewed clinicopathological characteristics, including subgroups composed of a single prototypic subtype of the UNC-PAM50 training cohort (n = 139), an external estrogen receptor (ER)-positive cohort (n = 48) and an external triple-negative cohort (n = 77).Subgroup-specific gene centering improved prediction performance with the accuracies between 77% and 100%, compared to accuracies between 17% and 33% from standard gene centering, when applied to the prototypic tumor subsets of the PAM50 training cohort. It reduced classification error rates on the ER-positive (11% versus 28%; P = 0.0389), the ER-negative (5% versus 41%; P < 0.0001) and the triple-negative (11% versus 56%; P = 0.1336) subgroups of the PAM50 training cohort. In addition, it produced higher accuracy for subtyping study cohorts composed of varying proportions of ER-positive versus ER-negative cases. Finally, it increased the percentage of assigned luminal subtypes on the external ER-positive cohort and basal-like subtype on the external triple-negative cohort.Gene centering is often necessary to accurately apply a molecular subtype classifier. Compared with standard gene centering, our proposed subgroup-specific gene centering produced more accurate molecular subtype assignments in a study cohort with skewed clinicopathological characteristics relative to the training cohort.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD), defined as onset of symptoms after age 65 years, is the most common form of dementia. Few reports investigate incidence rates in large family-based studies in which the participants were selected for family history of LOAD. OBJECTIVE:To determine the incidence rates of dementia and LOAD in unaffected members in the National Institute on Aging Genetics Initiative for Late-Onset Alzheimer Disease/National Cell Repository for Alzheimer Disease (NIA-LOAD/NCRAD) and Estudio Familiar de Influencia Genetica en Alzheimer (EFIGA) family studies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Families with 2 or more affected siblings who had a clinical or pathological diagnosis of LOAD were recruited as a part of the NIA-LOAD/NCRAD Family Study. A cohort of Caribbean Hispanics with familial LOAD was recruited in a different study at the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain in New York and from clinics in the Dominican Republic as part of the EFIGA study. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Age-specific incidence rates of LOAD were estimated in the unaffected family members in the NIA-LOAD/NCRAD and EFIGA data sets. We restricted analyses to families with follow-up and complete phenotype information, including 396 NIA-LOAD/NCRAD and 242 EFIGA families. Among the 943 at-risk family members in the NIA-LOAD/NCRAD families, 126 (13.4%) developed dementia, of whom 109 (86.5%) met criteria for LOAD. Among 683 at-risk family members in the EFIGA families, 174 (25.5%) developed dementia during the study period, of whom 145 (83.3%) had LOAD. RESULTS:The annual incidence rates of dementia and LOAD in the NIA-LOAD/NCRAD families per person-year were 0.03 and 0.03, respectively, in participants aged 65 to 74 years; 0.07 and 0.06, respectively, in those aged 75 to 84 years; and 0.08 and 0.07, respectively, in those 85 years or older. Incidence rates in the EFIGA families were slightly higher, at 0.03 and 0.02, 0.06 and 0.05, 0.10 and 0.08, and 0.10 and 0.07, respectively, in the same age groups. Contrasting these results with the population-based estimates, the incidence was increased by 3-fold for NIA-LOAD/NCRAD families (standardized incidence ratio, 3.44) and 2-fold among the EFIGA compared with the NIA-LOAD/NCRAD families (1.71). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:The incidence rates for familial dementia and LOAD in the NIA-LOAD/NCRAD and EFIGA families are significantly higher than population-based estimates. The incidence rates in all groups increase with age. The higher incidence of LOAD can be explained by segregation of Alzheimer disease-related genes in these families or shared environmental risks.

Dataset Information

Prevalence of Biologically vs Clinically Defined Alzheimer Spectrum Entities Using the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association Research Framework.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets