Predicting the course of Alzheimer's progression.

Samuel Iddi, Dan Li, Paul S Aisen, Michael S Rafii, Wesley K Thompson, Michael C Donohue, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
Author Information
  1. Samuel Iddi: Alzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, San Diego, USA. ORCID
  2. Dan Li: Alzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, San Diego, USA.
  3. Paul S Aisen: Alzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, San Diego, USA.
  4. Michael S Rafii: Alzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, San Diego, USA.
  5. Wesley K Thompson: Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, USA.
  6. Michael C Donohue: Alzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, San Diego, USA. mdonohue@usc.edu.

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease is the most common neurodegenerative disease and is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-beta peptides leading to the formation of plaques and tau protein tangles in brain. These neuropathological features precede cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's dementia by many years. To better understand and predict the course of disease from early-stage asymptomatic to late-stage dementia, it is critical to study the patterns of progression of multiple markers. In particular, we aim to predict the likely future course of progression for individuals given only a single observation of their markers. Improved individual-level prediction may lead to improved clinical care and clinical trials. We propose a two-stage approach to modeling and predicting measures of cognition, function, brain imaging, fluid biomarkers, and diagnosis of individuals using multiple domains simultaneously. In the first stage, joint (or multivariate) mixed-effects models are used to simultaneously model multiple markers over time. In the second stage, random forests are used to predict categorical diagnoses (cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia) from predictions of continuous markers based on the first-stage model. The combination of the two models allows one to leverage their key strengths in order to obtain improved accuracy. We characterize the predictive accuracy of this two-stage approach using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. The two-stage approach using a single joint mixed-effects model for all continuous outcomes yields better diagnostic classification accuracy compared to using separate univariate mixed-effects models for each of the continuous outcomes. Overall prediction accuracy above 80% was achieved over a period of 2.5 years. The results further indicate that overall accuracy is improved when markers from multiple assessment domains, such as cognition, function, and brain imaging, are used in the prediction algorithm as compared to the use of markers from a single domain only.

Keywords

References

  1. Predict Intell Med. 2019 Oct;11843:1-10 [PMID: 32587957]
  2. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98 [PMID: 1202204]
  3. J Nucl Med. 2012 Mar;53(3):378-84 [PMID: 22331215]
  4. Neuroimage. 2013 Jan 15;65:167-75 [PMID: 23041336]
  5. Comput Biol Med. 2017 Apr 1;83:109-119 [PMID: 28260614]
  6. Comput Biol Med. 2014 Aug;51:140-58 [PMID: 24946259]
  7. Alzheimers Dement. 2016 Jul;12(7):796-804 [PMID: 26852195]
  8. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006 Aug;63(8):916-24 [PMID: 16894068]
  9. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2008 May;37(5):406-10 [PMID: 18536828]
  10. JAMA. 2017 Jun 13;317(22):2305-2316 [PMID: 28609533]
  11. Lancet Neurol. 2005 Sep;4(9):576-9 [PMID: 16109364]
  12. Alzheimers Dement. 2013 Oct;9(5 Suppl):S72-83 [PMID: 23375563]
  13. Biometrics. 2018 Jun;74(2):685-693 [PMID: 29092100]
  14. Neurology. 1993 Nov;43(11):2412-4 [PMID: 8232972]
  15. J Intern Med. 2004 Sep;256(3):183-94 [PMID: 15324362]
  16. Neurology. 2005 Jun 14;64(11):1853-9 [PMID: 15955933]
  17. Neurobiol Aging. 2010 Aug;31(8):1275-83 [PMID: 20472326]
  18. Sci Transl Med. 2014 Mar 19;6(228):228fs13 [PMID: 24648338]
  19. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019 Mar;28(3):835-845 [PMID: 29168432]
  20. Brain Inform. 2016 Mar;3(1):17-27 [PMID: 27747596]
  21. Neuroimage. 2017 Jul 15;155:530-548 [PMID: 28414186]
  22. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;48(3):793-804 [PMID: 26402073]
  23. Bioinformatics. 2012 Jan 1;28(1):112-8 [PMID: 22039212]
  24. Arch Neurol. 2009 Mar;66(3):382-9 [PMID: 19273758]
  25. Neurodegener Dis. 2018;18(4):173-190 [PMID: 30089306]

Grants

  1. R01 AG049750/NIA NIH HHS
  2. BAND-14-338179/Biomarkers Across Neurodegenerative Disease
  3. R01-AG049750/NIA NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0markersmodelsaccuracyAlzheimer'sdiseasemultipleusingmixed-effectsbraindementiapredictcourseprogressionsinglepredictionimprovedtwo-stageapproachusedmodelcontinuouscognitiveimpairmentbetterindividualsclinicalcognitionfunctionimagingdiagnosisdomainssimultaneouslystagejointtimedataDiseaseoutcomescomparedcommonneurodegenerativecharacterizedaccumulationamyloid-betapeptidesleadingformationplaquestauproteintanglesneuropathologicalfeaturesprecedemanyyearsunderstandearly-stageasymptomaticlate-stagecriticalstudypatternsparticularaimlikelyfuturegivenobservationImprovedindividual-levelmayleadcaretrialsproposemodelingpredictingmeasuresfluidbiomarkersfirstmultivariatesecondrandomforestscategoricaldiagnosescognitivelynormalmildpredictionsbasedfirst-stagecombinationtwoallowsoneleveragekeystrengthsorderobtaincharacterizepredictiveNeuroimagingInitiativeyieldsdiagnosticclassificationseparateunivariateOverall80%achievedperiod25 yearsresultsindicateoverallassessmentalgorithmusedomainonlyPredictingAlzheimer’sBiomakersClassificationClinicaltrajectoriesJointLatentshiftModelaveragingMulti-cohortlongitudinalMulti-levelBayesianPredictionsRandomforest

Similar Articles

Cited By