Download - Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
1/33
Biomarker Values Predictive of
Cognitive Decline:Baseline or Progression?Hiroko H. Dodge, PhD
As soc ia te Professo r o f Neuro logyDirecto r, Bio s ta t is t ics and Data Core, Layton Ag ing
and Alzheimers Disease Center Orego n Health and Science Univers i ty
Port land , ORAdjun c t Research As soc ia te Professo rMichigan Alzheimers Disease Center
An n A rbo r, MI
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
2/33
Nothing to disclose
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
3/33
Outline of my talkI. Discuss briefly several statistical
approaches useful for longitudinal
data analysisII. Introduce our most recent work in
which we aim to identify biomarker
values associated with declines incognitive functions, using ADNI 1data
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
4/33
Longitudinal Data AnalysisWhy important?
Knowledge of biomarkers predictive ofcognitive and functional decline canfacilitate selective recruitment ofparticipants for clinical trials.
Research efforts are moving towards earlyidentification of high risk subjects andprevention of progression. Identifyingbiomarkers associated with subtle declinesin cognitive functions among asymptomaticsubjects is especially critical.
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
5/33
I. (Some) Statistical Approaches
Useful in Longitudinal Data Analysis of Biomarkers andCognition
Change point modelLatent trajectory model
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
6/33
Change Point Model Developed by Dr. Charles Hall (Einstein
School of Medicine) Identify the location of changes
(acceleration points) in slopes in relation toa specific endpoint (incidence of dementiaonset, MCI, death, etc)
F u n c
t i o n
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
7/33
Silbert, Dodge et. al. Trajectory of white matter
hyperintensity burden preceding mild cognitiveimpairment. Neurology 2012;79:741-747(PMC3421153)
Buracchio, Dodge et. al. The trajectory of gaitspeed preceding MCI. Archives of Neurology.
Archives of Neurology, 2010; 67:980-986(PMC2921227)
Dodge, Ganguli, et al. Terminal decline andpractice effects in non-demented older adults.Neurology, 2011:77;722-730. (PMC3164394)
Change Point Models: Examples
14 yrs
6 yrs
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
8/33
A pp l ica tion to B iom arker da ta:Ident i fy A cc elerat ion Points
Jack et al., ( Lancet Neurol 2010), Sperling et al.,( Alzheimers and Dementia 2011)
Acceleration in changesstarts
t t t'
Time pointsOrder of
accelerations inbiomarkers
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
9/33
Latent Trajectory Model
Mixed Effects Model:each subject can havea different time slope
Slope Distribution
Average Trajectory
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
10/33
Latent Trajectory Model
Identifyhomogeneousgroups interms of
trajectoriesand estimatecharacteristicsassociatedwith eachgroupsimultaneously(mixturemodelling)
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
11/33
A PPL ICATION O F MIXEDEFFECTS MODEL Erten-Lyons, Dodge et. al.Neuropathological basis of age-associated brain atrophy. JAMA
Neurology 70:616-622, 2013.
Dodge, Ganguli et. al. CohortEffects in Age-AssociatedCognitive Trajectories. Journal ofGerontology: Medical Sciences.In press.
Mixed Effects Model: ExamplesVentricular Volume Expansion
By CERAD Neuritic Plaque CategoriesNone/Sparse Moderate/Freq
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
12/33
L ATENT TRA JECTORYANALYSIS Dodge, Kaye et. al. In-home walking speeds andvariability trajectoriesassociated with MildCognitive Impairment.Neurology, 2012:78(24):1946-1952.
(PMC3369505)
Latent Trajectory Model: Examples
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
13/33
II. Baseline or Progression?-
Biomarkers Predictive ofCognitive Declines
(using ADNI 1 data, applicationof mixed effects model)
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
14/33
Biomarkers vs. cognitiveoutcomes
C o g n
i t i v e
F u n c
t i o n s
time (age)
Individual Specific Deviations from populationmean trajectory (random components)
Variability explained by Age, education, (reservefactors )
Baseline biomarker values
Rate ofprogression inbiomarker values
Populationmean/averagetrajectory
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
15/33
Aim/Data
To examine which components ---baselinevalues or biomarker progressions--explains more variability in cognitive
declines in memory and executivefunctions. DATA: the Alzheimers Disease
Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI 1). 526subjects with valid data in at least one ofour variables of interest were used in thisstudy.
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
16/33
Cognitive Outcomes
Trajectory (slope) of cognitive functions:1. ADNI-memory (ADNI-Mem) and2. ADNI-executive (ADNI-Exe).
(Crane et al., 2012; Gibbons et al., 2012)
The scores are psychometrically optimized
composite scores of memory and executivefunction, derived from items from ADNIneuropsychological tests
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
17/33
Approach: 2-stage
Stage 1. Individual-specific slope of thelongitudinal trajectory of each biomarker was estimated using mixed effects models.
Longitudinal trajectories of biomarkers model = + + + + ,
where ( , ) ~ 0, and
~ (0,2 ) .
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
18/33
Approach
Stage 2. Estimated individual-specific slope ofeach biomarker and observed baseline valueswere used as predictors of cognitive declinesusing mixed effects models. = + 1* < . + 2 1* . ( 0.5) +;
= + Age at baseline + 2 Sex + 3 Education + Apoe4 + + ;
2 =2 + 2 Sex + 22 Apoe4 + 23
Changes in diagnosis + 2 + 2 + 2 ;
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
19/33
Approach
Variability in cognitive declines explainedby subject-specific baseline biomarkervalues was compared with variabilityexplained by biomarker progressions.
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
20/33
Results
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
21/33
Notes for Table
Medial Temporal Cortical Thickness: summary variable by adding averagedmeans for left and right entorhinal (ERC), perirhinal (PRC) and posteriorparahipplocampal (PPHC) cortical region thicknesses.
Controlled variables: age at baseline, sex, education, apoe 4 allele (at leastone vs. none) and practice effects
N/A: Variability increased instead of decreased or had no changes, afterinclusion of the predictors in the model (i.e., including these variables didnot explain the variability of cognitive outcomes or caused more estimationerrors instead of explaining the variability).
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
22/33
OUTCOME: TRAJECTORIES OFMEMORY FUNCTION
Normal Group Among MCI* Among AD
Biomarker% of variability
explained bybiomarkers
% ofvariability
explained by
biomarkers
% of variabilityexplained bybiomarkers
CSF ttau baseline N/A N/A N/A CSF ttau progression N/A N/A N/A CSF Abeta 42 baseline N/A 5.10% N/A CSF Abeta 42 progression N/A 10.30% 6.60% FDG-PET baseline N/A 12.20% 30.00%
FDG-PET progression 1.50% 12.70% 84.00% Log_wmh/icv baseline N/A 0.50% N/A Log_wmh/icv progression N/A N/A 3.00% Hpcv/icv baseline N/A 9.00% 4.70% Hpcv/icv progression N/A 19.80% 26.00% Ventricles/icv baseline N/A 8.70% 4.20% Ventricles/icv progression N/A 39.40% 63.80% Total brain/icv baseline N/A 2.40% N/A Total brain/icv progression N/A 16.00% 26.00% Precuneus thickness baseline 4.52% N/A 12.12% Precuneus thickness progression 1.29% 4.87% 6.94% Medial Temporal cortical thickness baseline N/A 8.14% N/A Medial Temporal cortical thickness progression 4.44% 28.68% 34.67%
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
23/33
OUTCOME: TRAJECTORIES OFEXECU TIVE FUNCTION
Normal Group Among MCI* Among AD
Biomarker% of variability
explained bybiomarkers
% ofvariability
explained by
biomarkers
% of variabilityexplained bybiomarkers
CSF ttau baseline N/A N/A N/ACSF ttau progression N/A N/A N/ACSF Abeta 42 baseline N/A 23.70% N/ACSF Abeta 42 progression 2.50% 14.40% N/AFDG-PET baseline N/A 35.20% 18.20%
FDG-PET progression 6.20% 28.30% 39.50%Log_wmh/icv baseline N/A 2.40% N/ALog_wmh/icv progression N/A N/A N/AHpcv/icv baseline 9.20% N/A N/AHpcv/icv progression N/A 9.00% N/AVentricles/icv baseline N/A 13.00% 11.10%Ventricles/icv progression 16.90% 44.50% 65.10%Total brain/icv baseline N/A 9.50% 3.50%Total brain/icv progression N/A 32.20% 18.80%Precuneus thickness baseline 21.14% N/A 8.66%Precuneus thickness progression 9.78% 5.38% N/AMedial Temporal cortical thickness baseline N/A N/A N/AMedial Temporal cortical thickness progression N/A 21.55% 22.08%
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
24/33
Conclusions
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
25/33
A number of studies have shown support forthe hypothetical AD progression modeldeveloped by Jack et al (Jack et al., 2013;Jack et al., 2010).
Our study results also coincides with themodel to some extent; Across diagnosticgroups, the percentages of variability incognitive declines explained by functional
(FDG-PET) or structural (brain morphometric)biomarkers (either their baseline values orprogressions) increased significantly asdisease progressed from normal to MCI.
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
26/33
Among normal subjects in this dataset,precuneus thickness baseline values andmedial temporal cortical thinningprogressions explained variability indeclines of ADNI-Mem by over 4%.
Although this is small, it showed more
explanatory ability than CSF A42 and t -tau.
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
27/33
The relatively poor performance of CSF A42 and t -tau biomarker progression
values in explaining the cognitivetrajectories could be due to the fact that:The control group in ADNI is likely to be
heterogeneous and include significantnumbers of individuals who will notprogress to ADShorter duration of follow-up of thesemarkers might have reduced precisionof trajectory estimate in comparisonwith other markers in the current study.
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
28/33
Take Home MessageFor most biomarkers, biomarker progressions
were more associated with cognitive declinethan baseline values.This suggests that clinical trials which require
recruiting at-risk subjects could be improvedby using progression rather than baselinevalues in biomarkers to enrich the studysubjects.Future studies are warranted to estimate theincremental effectiveness of improving clinicaltrial statistical power by using biomarkerprogression criteria
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
29/33
Special Thanks to:Michigan A DCRoger Albin, MDRobert Koeppe, PhDJian Zhu, MSOrego n Health &
Science Univers i tyADC
Jeffrey Kaye, MDLisa Silbert, MDUC DavisDaniel Harvey, PhDUnivers i ty of Pi t tsb urg hMary Ganguli, MD
Fun ding Sources
Michigan ADC pi lo t
grant
R13 AG030995, Frid ayHarbor Ad vanced
Psychom et r ic WorkSh o p 2011
MCI Sym pos ium
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
30/33
CSF A42 (U2 series) in pg/mL
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
31/33
CSF T-tau (U2 series) in pg/mL
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
32/33
FDG-PET summary score
-
8/13/2019 Dodge_Symposium MCI 2014 V5
33/33
Medial Temporal CorticalThickness in Millimeters (mm)