Paul K Crane1, Tatiana Foroud2, Thomas J Montine3, Eric B Larson4. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: pcrane@uw.edu. 2. Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) used different criteria for assigning case and control status from the discovery and replication phases of the project. We considered data from a community-based prospective cohort study with autopsy follow-up where participants could be categorized as case, control, or neither by both definitions and compared the two sets of criteria. METHODS: We used data from the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study including Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV criteria for dementia status, McKhann et al. criteria for clinical Alzheimer's disease, and Braak and Consortium to Establish a Registry for AD findings on neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to categorize the 621 ACT participants of European ancestry who died and came to autopsy. We applied ADSP discovery and replication definitions to identify controls, cases, and people who were neither controls nor cases. RESULTS: There was some agreement between the discovery and replication definitions. Major areas of discrepancy included the finding that only 40% of the discovery sample controls had sufficiently low levels of neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to be considered controls by the replication criteria and the finding that 16% of the replication phase cases were diagnosed with non-AD dementia during life and thus were excluded as cases for the discovery phase. CONCLUSIONS: These findings should inform interpretation of genetic association findings from the ADSP. Differences in genetic association findings between the two phases of the study may reflect these different phenotype definitions from the discovery and replication phase of the ADSP.
INTRODUCTION: The Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) used different criteria for assigning case and control status from the discovery and replication phases of the project. We considered data from a community-based prospective cohort study with autopsy follow-up where participants could be categorized as case, control, or neither by both definitions and compared the two sets of criteria. METHODS: We used data from the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study including Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV criteria for dementia status, McKhann et al. criteria for clinical Alzheimer's disease, and Braak and Consortium to Establish a Registry for AD findings on neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to categorize the 621 ACT participants of European ancestry who died and came to autopsy. We applied ADSP discovery and replication definitions to identify controls, cases, and people who were neither controls nor cases. RESULTS: There was some agreement between the discovery and replication definitions. Major areas of discrepancy included the finding that only 40% of the discovery sample controls had sufficiently low levels of neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to be considered controls by the replication criteria and the finding that 16% of the replication phase cases were diagnosed with non-AD dementia during life and thus were excluded as cases for the discovery phase. CONCLUSIONS: These findings should inform interpretation of genetic association findings from the ADSP. Differences in genetic association findings between the two phases of the study may reflect these different phenotype definitions from the discovery and replication phase of the ADSP.
Authors: John P Rice; Sarah M Hartz; Arpana Agrawal; Laura Almasy; Siiri Bennett; Naomi Breslau; Kathleen K Bucholz; Kimberly F Doheny; Howard J Edenberg; Alison M Goate; Victor Hesselbrock; William B Howells; Eric O Johnson; John Kramer; Robert F Krueger; Samuel Kuperman; Cathy Laurie; Teri A Manolio; Rosalind J Neuman; John I Nurnberger; Bernice Porjesz; Elizabeth Pugh; Erin M Ramos; Nancy Saccone; Scott Saccone; Marc Schuckit; Laura J Bierut Journal: Addiction Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: S S Mirra; A Heyman; D McKeel; S M Sumi; B J Crain; L M Brownlee; F S Vogel; J P Hughes; G van Belle; L Berg Journal: Neurology Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Eric B Larson; Li Wang; James D Bowen; Wayne C McCormick; Linda Teri; Paul Crane; Walter Kukull Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-01-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Paul K Crane; Laura E Gibbons; Kristen Dams-O'Connor; Emily Trittschuh; James B Leverenz; C Dirk Keene; Joshua Sonnen; Thomas J Montine; David A Bennett; Sue Leurgans; Julie A Schneider; Eric B Larson Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: E L Teng; K Hasegawa; A Homma; Y Imai; E Larson; A Graves; K Sugimoto; T Yamaguchi; H Sasaki; D Chiu Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 1994 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Paul K Crane; Rod Walker; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ge Li; David M Nathan; Hui Zheng; Sebastien Haneuse; Suzanne Craft; Thomas J Montine; Steven E Kahn; Wayne McCormick; Susan M McCurry; James D Bowen; Eric B Larson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul K Crane; Laura E Gibbons; Susan M McCurry; Wayne McCormick; James D Bowen; Joshua Sonnen; C Dirk Keene; Thomas Grabowski; Thomas J Montine; Eric B Larson Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Iris M Heid; Cornelia Huth; Ruth J F Loos; Florian Kronenberg; Vera Adamkova; Sonia S Anand; Kristin Ardlie; Heike Biebermann; Peter Bjerregaard; Heiner Boeing; Claude Bouchard; Marina Ciullo; Jackie A Cooper; Dolores Corella; Christian Dina; James C Engert; Eva Fisher; Francesc Francès; Philippe Froguel; Johannes Hebebrand; Robert A Hegele; Anke Hinney; Margret R Hoehe; Frank B Hu; Jaroslav A Hubacek; Steve E Humphries; Steven C Hunt; Thomas Illig; Marjo-Riita Järvelin; Marika Kaakinen; Barbara Kollerits; Heiko Krude; Jitender Kumar; Leslie A Lange; Birgit Langer; Shengxu Li; Andreas Luchner; Helen N Lyon; David Meyre; Karen L Mohlke; Vincent Mooser; Almut Nebel; Thuy Trang Nguyen; Bernhard Paulweber; Louis Perusse; Lu Qi; Tuomo Rankinen; Dieter Rosskopf; Stefan Schreiber; Shantanu Sengupta; Rossella Sorice; Anita Suk; Gudmar Thorleifsson; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Henry Völzke; Karani S Vimaleswaran; Nicholas J Wareham; Dawn Waterworth; Salim Yusuf; Cecilia Lindgren; Mark I McCarthy; Christoph Lange; Joel N Hirschhorn; Nan Laird; H-Erich Wichmann Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2009-10-23 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Yuriko Katsumata; David W Fardo; Adam D Bachstetter; Sergey C Artiushin; Wang-Xia Wang; Angela Wei; Lena J Brzezinski; Bela G Nelson; Qingwei Huang; Erin L Abner; Sonya Anderson; Indumati Patel; Benjamin C Shaw; Douglas A Price; Dana M Niedowicz; Donna W Wilcock; Gregory A Jicha; Janna H Neltner; Linda J Van Eldik; Steven Estus; Peter T Nelson Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Michael E Belloy; Sarah J Eger; Yann Le Guen; Vincent Damotte; Shahzad Ahmad; M Arfan Ikram; Alfredo Ramirez; Anthoula C Tsolaki; Giacomina Rossi; Iris E Jansen; Itziar de Rojas; Kayenat Parveen; Kristel Sleegers; Martin Ingelsson; Mikko Hiltunen; Najaf Amin; Ole Andreassen; Pascual Sánchez-Juan; Patrick Kehoe; Philippe Amouyel; Rebecca Sims; Ruth Frikke-Schmidt; Wiesje M van der Flier; Jean-Charles Lambert; Zihuai He; Summer S Han; Valerio Napolioni; Michael D Greicius Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 6.982