PURPOSE: To assess the extent to which multiple Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers improve the ability to predict future decline in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) compared with predictions based on clinical parameters alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All protocols were approved by the institutional review board at each site, and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The study was HIPAA compliant. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) baseline magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) studies for 97 subjects with MCI were used. MR imaging-derived gray matter probability maps and FDG PET images were analyzed by using independent component analysis, an unbiased data-driven method to extract independent sources of information from whole-brain data. The loading parameters for all MR imaging and FDG components, along with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins, were entered into logistic regression models (dependent variable: conversion to AD within 4 years). Eight models were considered, including all combinations of MR imaging, PET, and CSF markers with the covariates (age, education, apolipoprotein E genotype, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale score). RESULTS: Combining MR imaging, FDG PET, and CSF data with routine clinical tests significantly increased the accuracy of predicting conversion to AD compared with clinical testing alone. The misclassification rate decreased from 41.3% to 28.4% (P < .00001). FDG PET contributed more information to routine tests (P < .00001) than CSF (P = .32) or MR imaging (P = .08). CONCLUSION: Imaging and CSF biomarkers can improve prediction of conversion from MCI to AD compared with baseline clinical testing. FDG PET appears to add the greatest prognostic information.
PURPOSE: To assess the extent to which multiple Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers improve the ability to predict future decline in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) compared with predictions based on clinical parameters alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All protocols were approved by the institutional review board at each site, and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The study was HIPAA compliant. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) baseline magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) studies for 97 subjects with MCI were used. MR imaging-derived gray matter probability maps and FDG PET images were analyzed by using independent component analysis, an unbiased data-driven method to extract independent sources of information from whole-brain data. The loading parameters for all MR imaging and FDG components, along with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins, were entered into logistic regression models (dependent variable: conversion to AD within 4 years). Eight models were considered, including all combinations of MR imaging, PET, and CSF markers with the covariates (age, education, apolipoprotein E genotype, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale score). RESULTS: Combining MR imaging, FDG PET, and CSF data with routine clinical tests significantly increased the accuracy of predicting conversion to AD compared with clinical testing alone. The misclassification rate decreased from 41.3% to 28.4% (P < .00001). FDG PET contributed more information to routine tests (P < .00001) than CSF (P = .32) or MR imaging (P = .08). CONCLUSION: Imaging and CSF biomarkers can improve prediction of conversion from MCI to AD compared with baseline clinical testing. FDG PET appears to add the greatest prognostic information.
Authors: S De Santi; M J de Leon; H Rusinek; A Convit; C Y Tarshish; A Roche; W H Tsui; E Kandil; M Boppana; K Daisley; G J Wang; D Schlyer; J Fowler Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2001 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Eric M Reiman; Kewei Chen; Gene E Alexander; Richard J Caselli; Daniel Bandy; David Osborne; Ann M Saunders; John Hardy Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-06-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Miguel Ángel Araque Caballero; Matthias Brendel; Andreas Delker; Jinyi Ren; Axel Rominger; Peter Bartenstein; Martin Dichgans; Michael W Weiner; Michael Ewers Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: E Cavedo; S Lista; Z Khachaturian; P Aisen; P Amouyel; K Herholz; C R Jack; R Sperling; J Cummings; K Blennow; S O'Bryant; G B Frisoni; A Khachaturian; M Kivipelto; W Klunk; K Broich; S Andrieu; M Thiebaut de Schotten; J-F Mangin; A A Lammertsma; K Johnson; S Teipel; A Drzezga; A Bokde; O Colliot; H Bakardjian; H Zetterberg; B Dubois; B Vellas; L S Schneider; H Hampel Journal: J Prev Alzheimers Dis Date: 2014-12
Authors: Antonio Martinez-Torteya; Juan Rodriguez-Rojas; José M Celaya-Padilla; Jorge I Galván-Tejada; Victor Treviño; Jose Tamez-Peña Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2014-09-15
Authors: Silvia Morbelli; Valentina Garibotto; Elsmarieke Van De Giessen; Javier Arbizu; Gaël Chételat; Alexander Drezgza; Swen Hesse; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Ian Law; Sabina Pappata'; Pierre Payoux; Marco Pagani Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Javier Arbizu; E Prieto; P Martínez-Lage; J M Martí-Climent; M García-Granero; I Lamet; P Pastor; M Riverol; M T Gómez-Isla; I Peñuelas; J A Richter; M W Weiner Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 9.236