| Literature DB >> 28045907 |
Giovana Gavidia-Bovadilla1, Samir Kanaan-Izquierdo1,2, María Mataró-Serrat3,4, Alexandre Perera-Lluna1,5.
Abstract
Incipient Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is characterized by a slow onset of clinical symptoms, with pathological brain changes starting several years earlier. Consequently, it is necessary to first understand and differentiate age-related changes in brain regions in the absence of disease, and then to support early and accurate AD diagnosis. However, there is poor understanding of the initial stage of AD; seemingly healthy elderly brains lose matter in regions related to AD, but similar changes can also be found in non-demented subjects having mild cognitive impairment (MCI). By using a Linear Mixed Effects approach, we modelled the change of 166 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-based biomarkers available at a 5-year follow up on healthy elderly control (HC, n = 46) subjects. We hypothesized that, by identifying their significant variant (vr) and quasi-variant (qvr) brain regions over time, it would be possible to obtain an age-based null model, which would characterize their normal atrophy and growth patterns as well as the correlation between these two regions. By using the null model on those subjects who had been clinically diagnosed as HC (n = 161), MCI (n = 209) and AD (n = 331), normal age-related changes were estimated and deviation scores (residuals) from the observed MRI-based biomarkers were computed. Subject classification, as well as the early prediction of conversion to MCI and AD, were addressed through residual-based Support Vector Machines (SVM) modelling. We found reductions in most cortical volumes and thicknesses (with evident gender differences) as well as in sub-cortical regions, including greater atrophy in the hippocampus. The average accuracies (ACC) recorded for men and women were: AD-HC: 94.11%, MCI-HC: 83.77% and MCI converted to AD (cAD)-MCI non-converter (sMCI): 76.72%. Likewise, as compared to standard clinical diagnosis methods, SVM classifiers predicted the conversion of cAD to be 1.9 years earlier for females (ACC:72.5%) and 1.4 years earlier for males (ACC:69.0%).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28045907 PMCID: PMC5207395 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Proposed framework.
(A) HC subjects with normal CSF profile are identified from cutoff values calculated from CSF biomarkers distributions. (B) Longitudinal ROIs of these subjects are modelled using LME approach, variant (vr) and quasi-variant (qvr) ROIs and Y-intercepts (y0) ROIs values are identified and then null models for both genders are built from these values by applying multivariate modelling. (C) qvr ROIs values of new HC, MCI and AD subjects are used within null models to infer the y0 values of vr ROIs. Estimated ROIs values () at different ages are estimated by linear regression by using y0 and β coefficients of age and education. Residuals are calculated as the difference ; and finally, SVM classifiers are trained for subject classification and addressing the early diagnosis problem: HC vs MCI, MCI vs. AD and HC vs AD. The full workflow of last two stages is applied separately for each gender.
Classification results with current diagnostic.
| Source | Diagnostic variable | Class | Class description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADNI | CN | Control normal at baseline | |
| LMCI | Late MCI at baseline | ||
| AD | Early probable AD at baseline | ||
| NL | Subjects diagnosed as stable normal at current visitation | ||
| NL to MCI | Subjects diagnosed as MCI at current visit who previously were NL | ||
| NL to Dementia | Subjects diagnosed as dementia due to AD at current visit who previously were NL | ||
| MCI | Subjects diagnosed as stable MCI at current visit who previously were also MCI | ||
| MCI to Dementia | Subjects diagnosed as dementia due to AD at current visit who previously were MCI | ||
| Dementia | Subjects diagnosed as stable dementia due to AD at current visit who previously were also MCI | ||
| Our study | sHC | Subjects labelled as HC who remained like HC in all follow-up visits (who did not become MCI or AD) | |
| sMCI | the MCI subject who did not become AD | ||
| cMCI | Subjects initially labelled as HC who subsequently have converted to MCI | ||
| sAD | Subjects who remained like probable or possible AD all the follow-up visits | ||
| cAD | Subjects labelled as HC or MCI who subsequently have converted to probable or possible AD | ||
| normal-HCcsf | sHC subjects with normal CSF profile | ||
| abnormal-HCcsf | sHC subjects with abnormal CSF profile | ||
| normal-MCIcsf | sMCI and cMCI subjects with normal CSF profile | ||
| abnormal-MCIcsf | sMCI and cMCI subjects with abnormal CSF profile | ||
| normal-ADcsf | sAD and cAD subjects with normal CSF profile | ||
| abnormal-ADcsf | sAD and cAD subjects with abnormal CSF profile |
Fig 2Boxplot of CSF biomarkers concentrations for dx diagnostic groups.
(a) CSF-Aβ1 − 42; and (b) CSF-τ.
Baseline statistical descriptors of HC subjects selected for null models building.
| Female | Male | |
|---|---|---|
| 71.2 75.1 77.7 (74.7± 5.3) | 70.4 71.8 74.0 (72.7± 6.0) | |
| 65.0 70.0 80.0 (0.73± 0.09) | 70.0 82.5 90.0 (0.81±0.15) | |
| 0 | 95.8% | 90.9% |
| 1 | 4.2% | 9.1% |
| 29.0 29.0 30.0 (29.25± 0.67) | 28.0 29.0 30.0 (28.54± 1.50) | |
| 0 | 100% | 82% |
| 0.5 | 0% | 18% |
| 234.9 248.5 256.0 (247.23± 20.14) | 235.0 257.9 268.2 (253.22± 21.69) | |
| 47.9 55.260.9 (55.41± 15.10) | 47.0 59.9 73.8 (59.84± 16.83) |
Values of continuous variables are represented by the lower, the median and the upper quartiles; and the mean± standard deviation in parentheses.
Comparison of methods performances focused on subject classification (%).
| Method | AD vs HC | MCI vs HC | cAD vs sMCI | Data used | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACC | SEN | SPE | ACC | SEN | SPE | ACC | SEN | SPE | ||
| Kloeppel et al. [ | 95.0 | 95.0 | 95.0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | MRI |
| Vemuri et al. [ | - | 86.0 | 86.0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | MRI |
| - | 88.0 | 90.0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | MRI,age,gender | |
| - | 86.0 | 92.0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | MRI,age,gender,APOE | |
| Cui et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | - | 67.13 | 96.43 | 48.28 | NM,CSF,MRI |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | 62.24 | 92.86 | 42.53 | NM,MRI | |
| - | - | - | - | - | - | 62.24 | 57.14 | 65.52 | MRI | |
| Cuingnet et al. [ | - | 81.0 | 95.0 | - | - | - | - | 57.0 | 78.0 | MRI |
| Zhang et al. [ | 93.3 | - | - | 83.2 | - | - | 73.9 | 68.6 | 73.6 | MRI,PET,CSF |
| Suk et al. [ | 95.9 | - | - | 85.0 | - | - | 75.8 | - | - | MRI,PET |
| Jie et al. [ | 95.03 | 94.90 | 95.00 | 79.27 | 85.86 | 66.64 | 68.94 | 64.65 | 71.79 | MRI,FDG-PET |
| Gaser et al. [ | - | - | - | - | - | - | 75.00 | 71.00 | 84.00 | MRI-based age |
| Spulber et al. [ | 88.4 | 86.1 | 90.4 | - | - | - | 67.7 | 69.6 | 66.8 | MRI-based index |
| Aguilar et al. [ | - | 92.0 | 75.0 | - | - | - | - | 92.0 | 47.0 | MRI-based index |
| Liu et al. [ | 94.37 | 94.71 | 94.04 | 78.8 | 84.85 | 67.06 | 67.83 | 64.88 | 70.0 | MRI,PET |
| Suk et al. [ | 92.38 | 91.54 | 94.56 | 84.24 | 99.58 | 53.79 | 72.42 | 36.70 | 90.98 | MRI |
| 93.35 | 94.65 | 95.22 | 85.67 | 95.37 | 65.87 | 75.92 | 48.04 | 95.23 | MRI,PET | |
| MRI-based residuals, age | ||||||||||
| MRI-based residuals, age, MMSE,CDRGLOBAL | ||||||||||
* Results of this method correspond to the average of performance recorded for men and women. MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based features; CSF; Cerebral Spinal Fluid-based biomarkers; NM: Neuro-psychological measures; PET, Positron Emission Tomography-based features; FDG-PET, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake measured in PET; MRI-based age, individual estimated age computed from MRI images; MRI-based index, individual severity index computed from MRI images; MMSE, Mini-Mental Clinical Dementia Rating; CDRGLOBAL, CDR Global Score.
Last known diagnostic prediction advancement.
| Advancement for early prediction in years | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment | 60–64 yrs. | 65–69 yrs. | 70–74 yrs. | 75–79 yrs. | 80–84 yrs. | 85–89 yrs. | |
| Females | AD vs HC | 1.772 (85.73) | 1.596(86.05) | 1.335(86.79) | 1.745(88.93) | 1.523(90.21) | 1.245(89.67) |
| MCI vs HC | N/A | N/A | 2.888(74.42) | 2.071(76.08) | 2.381(78.40) | N/A | |
| AD vs MCI | 1.982(69.23) | 1.539(70.04) | 1.307(69.55) | 1.751(71.37) | 1.509(72.41) | 1.433(71.28) | |
| Males | AD vs HC | 1.232(84.27) | 1.801(85.30) | 1.667(86.91) | 1.327(87.75) | 1.775(89.44) | 1.006(89.52) |
| MCI vs HC | 1.257(72.47) | N/A | 1.739(77.29) | 2.529(78.32) | 2.686(78.59) | 1.439(79.81) | |
| AD vs MCI | 1.448(68.95) | 1.697(69.44) | 1.679(70.22) | 1.372(71.18) | 1.733(73.46) | 1.011(73.06) | |
N/A means there are not enough samples in the age interval for binary classification. (ACC) represents the prediction accuracy of F2 method in %