| Literature DB >> 33816755 |
Yael Deri1, Sean A P Clouston2, Christine DeLorenzo3,4, John D Gardus3, Megan Horton5, Cheuk Tang6, Alison C Pellecchia7, Stephanie Santiago-Michels7, Melissa A Carr7, Sam Gandy8,9, Mary Sano9, Evelyn J Bromet3, Roberto G Lucchini5, Benjamin J Luft1,7.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to investigate associations between dementia in World Trade Center (WTC) responders and in vivo volumetric measures of hippocampal subfield volumes in WTC responders at midlife.Entities:
Keywords: World Trade Center responder; cognitive impairment; hippocampal subfields; post‐traumatic stress disorder
Year: 2021 PMID: 33816755 PMCID: PMC8011041 DOI: 10.1002/dad2.12165
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) ISSN: 2352-8729
Demographic and clinical characteristics of N = 99 participants in the WTC neurocognitive imaging study
| Overall | CU | CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | (N = 99) | (N = 51) | (N = 48) |
|
| Age, y | 56.37 ± 5.19 | 56.37 ± 4.59 | 56.36 ± 5.81 | 0.993 |
| Sex | 0.876 | |||
| Male | 78 (78.8%) | 41 (80%) | 37 (77%) | |
| Female | 22 (22.2%) | 10 (20%) | 11 (23%) | |
| Race/ethnicity | 0.096 | |||
| White | 73 (73.7%) | 43 (84.3%) | 30 (62.5%) | |
| Black | 10 (10.1%) | 3 (5.9%) | 7 (14.6%) | |
| Hispanic | 12 (12.1%) | 4 (7.8%) | 8 (16.7%) | |
| Other | 4 (4.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 3 (6.2%) | |
| Occupation before 9/11 | 0.186 | |||
| Police | 73 (73.7%) | 41 (80.4%) | 32 (66.7%) | |
| Other | 26 (26.3%) | 10 (19.6%) | 16 (33.3%) | |
| Educational attainment | 0.359 | |||
| High school or less | 23(23.2%) | 9 (17.6%) | 14 (29.2%) | |
| Some college | 47 (47.5%) | 25 (49.0%) | 22 (45.8%) | |
| University degree | 29 (29.3%) | 17 (33.4%) | 12 (25.0%) | |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 29.22 ± 4.03 | 28.69 ± 4.00 | 29.79 ± 4.04 | 0.175 |
| PTSD Dx | 1.000 | |||
| No | 52 (52.5%) | 27 (52.9%) | 25 (52.1%) | |
| Yes | 47 (47.5%) | 24 (47.1%) | 23 (47.9%) | |
| MDD Dx | 0.906 | |||
| No | 81 (81.8%) | 41 (80.4%) | 40 (83.3%) | |
| Yes | 18 (18.2%) | 10 (19.6%) | 8 (16.7%) | |
| AUDIT | 3.04 ± 3.77 | 3.20 ± 3.79 | 2.87 ± 3.78 | 0.671 |
| Total months on site | 4.05 ± 3.31 | 3.99 ± 3.38 | 4.10 ± 3.27 | 0.882 |
| TIV, cm3 | 1578.5 ± 147 | 1583.26 ± 128.25 | 1573.44 ± 165.86 | 0.742 |
Notes: Means (± standard deviations) or percentages (%) reported. P‐values examine the extent to which noted characteristics differ across cognitive status groups and were derived using Student's t‐tests for continuous variables and χ2 or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables.
The rates reflect the 2 × 2 design of the study.
Abbreviations: AUDIT, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.; BMI, body mass index, CI, WTC responders with cognitive impairment; CU, WTC responders with unimpaired cognition; MDD Dx, lifetime major depression disorder diagnosis; PTSD Dx, WTC‐related posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis; TIV, total intracranial volume; WTC, World Trade Center.
Association between cognitive status and hippocampal subfield volumes
| Panel A: Mean Raw Volumes (mm3) by cognitive impairment status | Panel B: Standardized regression coefficients indicating size of cognitive impairment association | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subregion name | CU | CI | β | SE |
|
| CA1 | 678.17 ± 65.19 | 660.83 ± 80.21 | –0.12 | 0.080 | 0.144 |
| CA2/3 | 226.91 ± 28.90 | 221.03 ± 26.56 | –0.11 | 0.089 | 0.207 |
| CA4 | 271.58 ± 26.06 | 260.46 ± 27.72 | –0.21 | 0.082 | 0.018 |
| CG‐DG | 318.66 ± 29.55 | 305.42 ± 33.20 | –0.21 | 0.078 | 0.018 |
| ML | 603.94 ± 54.86 | 580.50 ± 64.66 | –0.20 | 0.078 | 0.018 |
| Subiculum | 455.01 ± 47.77 | 435.31 ± 54.96 | –0.19 | 0.084 | 0.031 |
| Presubiculum | 319.36 ± 32.95 | 299.57 ± 40.33 | –0.23 | 0.088 | 0.018 |
| Fimbria | 97.93 ± 12.48 | 90.67 ± 16.91 | –0.24 | 0.089 | 0.018 |
Raw volumes of hippocampal subfields of interest in WTC responders with CU and WTC responders with CI.
Standardized beta coefficients (β) represent the change in standard deviation units of the subregion volume that is associated with CI after adjusting for with CI after adjusting for matched variables (i.e., age at scan, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and occupation before 9/11) and TIV. P‐values (P) were corrected for false discovery rate. *P < 0.05.
Abbreviations: CA, Cornu Ammonis; CG‐DG, granule cell layer of dentate gyrus; CI, cognitive impairment; CU, unimpaired cognition; ML, molecular layer; se, standard error for the standardized coefficient; TIV, total intracranial volume; WTC, World Trade Center.
FIGURE 1Effects of cognitive status on hippocampal subfield volumes. Difference between cognitively unimpaired (CU, black) and cognitively impaired (CI, red) WTC responders was determined using linear regression models for each hippocampal subfield of interest. Y‐axis shows standardized residuals of hippocampal subfield volumes after controlling total intracranial volume (TIV). Error bars represent ± standard error of the mean. All significant effects passed the false discovery rate. *P < 0.05. Abbreviations: CA, cornu ammonis; CG‐DG, granule cell layer of dentate gyrus; ML, molecular layer, P = P‐value; WTC, World Trade Center
Association between both cognitive status and length of time worked on the WTC site and hippocampal subfield volumes
| Panel A: Standardized regression coefficients showing size of cognitive impairment association | Panel B: Standardized regression coefficients showing size of association with total months on site | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subregion name | β | SE |
| β | SE |
|
| CA1 | –0.10 | 0.086 | 0.245 | –0.16 | 0.087 | 0.148 |
| CA2/3 | –0.11 | 0.087 | 0.218 | 0.09 | 0.088 | 0.333 |
| CA4 | –0.22 | 0.084 | 0.031 | –0.07 | 0.085 | 0.394 |
| CG‐DG | –0.21 | 0.083 | 0.031 | –0.1 | 0.084 | 0.333 |
| ML | –0.18 | 0.083 | 0.056 | –0.2 | 0.084 | 0.045 |
| Subiculum | –0.18 | 0.086 | 0.056 | –0.24 | 0.087 | 0.031 |
| Presubiculum | –0.28 | 0.085 | 0.013 | –0.29 | 0.086 | 0.0095 |
| Fimbria | –0.19 | 0.097 | 0.074 | –0.11 | 0.098 | 0.333 |
Notes: Regression models included both cognitive impairment and total time worked at the WTC site (months) simultaneously as predictors were used to test associations with hippocampal subfield volumes adjusted for TIV. Resulted standardized beta coefficients (β) represent the change in standard deviation units of subregion volume associated with CI (Panel A) and length of time worked on the WTC site (Panel B). P‐values (P) were corrected for false discovery rate. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01.
Abbreviations: β, standardized beta coefficient; CA, cornu ammonis; CG‐DG, granule cell layer of dentate gyrus; CI, WTC responders with cognitive impairment; CU, WTC responders with unimpaired cognition; ML, molecular layer; se, standard error for the standardized coefficient; TIV, total intracranial volume; WTC, World Trade Center.
FIGURE 2Association between cognitive throughput performances of hippocampal subfield volumes and whole hippocampal volume adjusted for total intracranial volume (TIV). Regression models show the associations between throughput scores (higher score = better outcome) and hippocampal subfields or whole hippocampal volume adjusted for TIV. Y‐axis is scaled to mean ± 2.5 standard deviations of each subregion absolute volume. Sample size used in this analysis was 98 participants because one participant failed to complete the One Card Learning test that was used to calculate the throughput score and therefore was not included in this analysis. Abbreviations: CA, cornu ammonis; CG‐DG, granule cell layer of dentate gyrus; ML, molecular layer
Association between cognitive throughput performances and hippocampal subfield volumes
| Panel A: Standardized regression coefficients showing size of association with throughputa | Panel B: Standardized regression coefficients indicating size of association with throughputb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subregion name | β | SE |
| β | SE |
|
| CA1 | 0.24 | 0.078 | 0.004 | 0.22 | 0.077 | 0.007 |
| CA2/3 | 0.11 | 0.084 | 0.226 | 0.13 | 0.089 | 0.171 |
| CA4 | 0.25 | 0.079 | 0.003 | 0.25 | 0.080 | 0.004 |
| CG‐DG | 0.27 | 0.077 | 0.002 | 0.26 | 0.077 | 0.004 |
| ML | 0.29 | 0.077 | 0.002 | 0.28 | 0.076 | 0.003 |
| Subiculum | 0.28 | 0.082 | 0.002 | 0.27 | 0.082 | 0.004 |
| Presubiculum | 0.31 | 0.085 | 0.002 | 0.28 | 0.086 | 0.004 |
| Fimbria | 0.06 | 0.092 | 0.489 | 0.03 | 0.093 | 0.783 |
Notes: Regression models show the association between throughput scores (n = 98; higher score = better outcome) and hippocampal subfields aadjusted for TIV or badjusted for matching variables (i.e., age at scan, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and occupation before 9/11) and TIV. Standardized beta coefficients (β) represent the change in standard deviation units of the subregion volume that is associated with 1 standard deviation increase throughput score. P‐values (P) were corrected for false discovery rate. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01.
Abbreviations: CA, cornu ammonis; CG‐DG, granule cell layer of dentate gyrus; ML, molecular layer; se, standard error for the standardized coefficient; TIV, total intracranial volume; WTC, World Trade Center.
FIGURE 3Heat map showing levels of association among various cognitive domains and volumetric measures of hippocampal subfields. Standardized beta coefficient (β) from linear regression modeling adjusting for total intracranial volume (TIV). Coefficients were transformed so that increases in cognitive domains scores are consistent with worse outcomes. All coefficients deemed statistically significant upon adjusting for the false discovery rate (FDR = 0.05) were reported (black font, P < 0.05). Red filling indicates reduced volume was associated with poorer performances; gray filling indicates increased volume was associated with poorer performances. Abbreviations: CA, cornu ammonis; CG‐DG, granule cell layer of dentate gyrus; ML, molecular layer, P = P‐value
Cognitive status regressed on hippocampal subfield volumes
| Panel A: Standardized regression coefficients showing size of association with cognitive impairment statua | Panel B: Standardized regression coefficients showing size of association with cognitive impairment statusb | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subregion name | β | SE |
| β | SE |
|
| CA1 | –0.10 | 0.081 | 0.256 | –0.10 | 0.082 | 0.260 |
| CA2/3 | –0.09 | 0.084 | 0.301 | –0.09 | 0.084 | 0.305 |
| CA4 | –0.18 | 0.080 | 0.047 | –0.18 | 0.081 | 0.049 |
| CG‐DG | –0.19 | 0.079 | 0.047 | –0.19 | 0.079 | 0.049 |
| ML | –0.17 | 0.080 | 0.052 | 0.17 | 0.081 | 0.052# |
| Subiculum | –0.17 | 0.084 | 0.058 | –0.17 | 0.084 | 0.055# |
| Presubiculum | –0.25 | 0.086 | 0.042 | –0.25 | 0.086 | 0.037 |
| Fimbria | –0.23 | 0.089 | 0.047 | –0.23 | 0.089 | 0.049 |
Notes: Regression models show the size of the association between cognitive impairment on hippocampal subfields adjusted for TIV (Panel A) or adjusted for PTSD status and TIV (Panel B). Standardized beta coefficients (β) represent the change in standard deviation units of subregion volume associated with CI. P‐values (P) were corrected for false discovery rate.*P < 0.05.
Abbreviations: β, standardized beta coefficient; CA, cornu ammonis; CG‐DG, granule cell layer of dentate gyrus; CI, WTC responders with cognitive impairment; CU, WTC responders with unimpaired cognition; ML, molecular layer; se, standard error for the standardized coefficient; WTC, World Trade Center.
Performance across various cognitive domains by cognitive impairment status
| Cognitive domains | CU | CI | Cohen's D |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Throughput | 0.33 ± 0.04 | 0.30 ± 0.03 | 0.87 | <0.0001 |
| Processing speed | 2.54 ± 0.09 | 2.64 ± 0.13 | 0.81 | 0.0002 |
| Response speed | 2.73 ± 0.07 | 2.80 ± 0.1 | 0.76 | 0.0003 |
| Intra‐individual response variability | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.12 ± 0.04 | 0.89 | <0.0001 |
| Episodic memory | 94.52 ± 59.04 | 157.67 ± 62.64 | 1.04 | <0.0001 |
| Visuospatial learning | 57.08 ± 15.42 | 95.04 ± 61.21 | 0.87 | <0.0001 |
| Visuospatial recall | 9.47 ± 4.33 | 17.5 ± 10.99 | 0.98 | <0.0001 |
| Visual memory | 0.99 ± 0.12 | 0.91 ± 0.10 | 0.75 | 0.0003 |
Notes: Means and standard deviations of cognitive domains outcome measures for WTC responders with and without cognitive impairment are reported. P‐values (P) examine the extent to which cognitive performances differ across cognitive status using Student's t tests or Mann Whitney test as appropriate and effect size (Cohen's D) are also reported. P presented here are corrected for the false discovery rate. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01j
aHigher score = better performance.
bLower score = better performance.
Abbreviations: CI, WTC responders with cognitive impairment; CU, WTC responders with unimpaired cognition; WTC, World Trade Center.