OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of high-convexity tight sulci (HCTS) in a population-based sample and whether the presence of HCTS and related features influenced participants' cognitive status and classification within the new Alzheimer-biomarker framework. METHODS: We analyzed 684 participants ≥50 years of age who were enrolled in the prospective population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and underwent structural MRI, amyloid PET imaging, and tau PET imaging. A fully automated machine-learning algorithm that had been developed previously in house was used to detect neuroimaging features of HCTS. On the basis of PET and MRI measures, participants were classified as having normal (A-) or abnormal (A+) amyloid, normal (T-) or abnormal (T+) tau, and normal (N-) or abnormal (N+) neurodegeneration. The neuropsychological battery assessed domain-specific and global cognitive scores. Gait speed also was assessed. Analyses were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: Of 684 participants, 45 (6.6%) were classified with HCTS according to the automated algorithm. Patients with HCTS were older than patients without HCTS (mean [SD] 78.0 [8.3] vs 71.9 [10.8] years; p < 0.001). More were cognitively impaired after age and sex adjustment (27% vs 9%; p = 0.005). Amyloid PET status was similar with and without HCTS, but tau PET standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) was lower for those with HCTS after age and sex adjustment (p < 0.001). Despite a lower tau SUVR, patients with HCTS had lower Alzheimer disease (AD) signature cortical thickness. With the amyloid-tau-neurodegeneration framework, HCTS was overrepresented in the T-(N)+ group, regardless of amyloid status. CONCLUSION: The HCTS pattern represents a definable subgroup of non-AD pathophysiology (i.e., T-[N]+) that is associated with cognitive impairment. HCTS may confound clinical and biomarker interpretation in AD clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of high-convexity tight sulci (HCTS) in a population-based sample and whether the presence of HCTS and related features influenced participants' cognitive status and classification within the new Alzheimer-biomarker framework. METHODS: We analyzed 684 participants ≥50 years of age who were enrolled in the prospective population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and underwent structural MRI, amyloid PET imaging, and tau PET imaging. A fully automated machine-learning algorithm that had been developed previously in house was used to detect neuroimaging features of HCTS. On the basis of PET and MRI measures, participants were classified as having normal (A-) or abnormal (A+) amyloid, normal (T-) or abnormal (T+) tau, and normal (N-) or abnormal (N+) neurodegeneration. The neuropsychological battery assessed domain-specific and global cognitive scores. Gait speed also was assessed. Analyses were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: Of 684 participants, 45 (6.6%) were classified with HCTS according to the automated algorithm. Patients with HCTS were older than patients without HCTS (mean [SD] 78.0 [8.3] vs 71.9 [10.8] years; p < 0.001). More were cognitively impaired after age and sex adjustment (27% vs 9%; p = 0.005). Amyloid PET status was similar with and without HCTS, but tau PET standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) was lower for those with HCTS after age and sex adjustment (p < 0.001). Despite a lower tau SUVR, patients with HCTS had lower Alzheimer disease (AD) signature cortical thickness. With the amyloid-tau-neurodegeneration framework, HCTS was overrepresented in the T-(N)+ group, regardless of amyloid status. CONCLUSION: The HCTS pattern represents a definable subgroup of non-AD pathophysiology (i.e., T-[N]+) that is associated with cognitive impairment. HCTS may confound clinical and biomarker interpretation in AD clinical trials.
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Limor Raz; M Jayachandran; Nirubol Tosakulwong; Timothy G Lesnick; Samantha M Wille; Matthew C Murphy; Matthew L Senjem; Jeffrey L Gunter; Prashanthi Vemuri; Clifford R Jack; Virginia M Miller; Kejal Kantarci Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Val J Lowe; Matthew L Senjem; Stephen D Weigand; Bradley J Kemp; Maria M Shiung; David S Knopman; Bradley F Boeve; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Brain Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David A Bennett; Kaj Blennow; Maria C Carrillo; Billy Dunn; Samantha Budd Haeberlein; David M Holtzman; William Jagust; Frank Jessen; Jason Karlawish; Enchi Liu; Jose Luis Molinuevo; Thomas Montine; Creighton Phelps; Katherine P Rankin; Christopher C Rowe; Philip Scheltens; Eric Siemers; Heather M Snyder; Reisa Sperling Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Panteleimon Giannakopoulos; Marie-Louise Montandon; François R Herrmann; Dennis Hedderich; Christian Gaser; Elias Kellner; Cristelle Rodriguez; Sven Haller Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jonathan Graff-Radford; David T Jones; Heather J Wiste; Petrice M Cogswell; Stephen D Weigand; Val Lowe; Benjamin D Elder; Prashanthi Vemuri; Argonde Van Harten; Michelle M Mielke; David S Knopman; Neill R Graff-Radford; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Jeffrey L Gunter Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: P M Cogswell; M C Murphy; M L Senjem; H Botha; J L Gunter; B D Elder; J Graff-Radford; D T Jones; J K Cutsforth-Gregory; C G Schwarz; F B Meyer; J Huston; C R Jack Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Per Kristian Eide; Lars Magnus Valnes; Erika Kristina Lindstrøm; Kent-Andre Mardal; Geir Ringstad Journal: Fluids Barriers CNS Date: 2021-04-01
Authors: Petrice M Cogswell; Stephen D Weigand; Heather J Wiste; Jeffrey L Gunter; Jonathan Graff-Radford; David T Jones; Christopher G Schwarz; Matthew L Senjem; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Petrice M Cogswell; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Lincoln I Wurtz; Neill R Graff-Radford; Derek R Johnson; Christopher H Hunt; Jeffrey L Gunter; Jeremy K Cutsforth-Gregory; David T Jones; Benjamin D Elder; John Huston Iii; Clifford R Jack Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 4.881