| Literature DB >> 33213489 |
Arnd Sörensen1, Ganna Blazhenets2, Florian Schiller2, Philipp Tobias Meyer2, Lars Frings2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amyloid-β (Aβ) PET is an established predictor of conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's dementia (AD). We compared three PET (including an approach based on voxel-wise Cox regression) and one cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) outcome measures in their predictive power.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s dementia; Amyloid biomarkers; Conversion prediction; Mild cognitive impairment; PET image evaluation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33213489 PMCID: PMC7678323 DOI: 10.1186/s13195-020-00721-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Impact factor: 6.982
Clinical and demographic characteristics of the included Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants
| Training dataset ( | Test dataset ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCI-c ( | MCI-nc ( | MCI-c ( | MCI-nc ( | |
| Mean age (± S.D.) [years] | 72 ± 7 | 73 ± 8 | 73 ± 7 | 73 ± 8 |
| Sex [m/f] | 14/27 | 55/63 | 15/14 | 59/42 |
| Mean Aβ42/Aβ40 in CSF (± S.D.) | Not assessed | 0.10 ± 0.06 | 0.15 ± 0.06 | |
| PES of ADCRP (± S.D.) | 18 ± 19 | − 6 ± 18 | 16 ± 13 | − 2 ± 17 |
| Median follow-up time (95% C.I.) [months] | 48 (36–51) | 47 (35–51) | ||
| Cox-SUVR (± S.D.) | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 1.5 ± 0.2 |
| Composite SUVR (± S.D.) | Not assessed | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | |
MCI-c mild cognitive impairment–converters, MCI-nc MCI non-converters, S.D. standard deviation, CSF cerebrospinal fluid, PES pattern expression score, SUVR standardized uptake value ratio
Fig. 1Surface projections of the hazard ratios (HRs) from the voxel-wise Cox regressions in the training dataset. HR is expressed per one unit increase of the z-scaled standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR; reference region: cerebellum) of 18F-florbetapir
Fig. 2Volume of interest (VOI) overlays (onto the MNI-152 MRI template) showing significant voxels with top 20% hazard ratios (HRs) from voxel-wise Cox regressions in the training dataset (red, Cox-VOI) used to assess Cox-SUVR and the anatomical VOI (blue; taken from [20]) employed for composite SUVR calculation
Fig. 3Prediction concordance (Harrell’s c) and respective confidence intervals of the four Cox regression models (corrected for age and sex). P values were derived from pair-wise likelihood ratio tests