Cited by 78Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

Suspected non-AD pathology in mild cognitive impairment

Open access
Wisse, Laura E.M., Butala, Nirali, Das, Sandhitsu R., Davatzikos, Christos, Dickerson, Bradford C., Vaishnavi, Sanjeev N., Yushkevich, Paul A., Wolk, David A.·2015·Neurobiology of Aging

Abstract

We aim to better characterize mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients with suspected non-Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology (SNAP) based on their longitudinal outcome, cognition, biofluid, and neuroimaging profile. MCI participants (n = 361) from ADNI-GO/2 were designated "amyloid positive" with abnormal amyloid-beta 42 levels (AMY+) and "neurodegeneration positive" (NEU+) with abnormal hippocampal volume or hypometabolism using fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. SNAP was compared with the other MCI groups and with AMY- controls. AMY-NEU+/SNAP, 16.6%, were older than the NEU- groups but not AMY- controls. They had a lower conversion rate to AD after 24 months than AMY+NEU+ MCI participants. SNAP-MCI participants had similar amyloid-beta 42 levels, florbetapir and tau levels, but larger white matter hyperintensity volumes than AMY- controls and AMY-NEU- MCI participants. SNAP participants performed worse on all memory domains and on other cognitive domains, than AMY-NEU- participants but less so than AMY+NEU+ participants. Subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloidosis are unlikely to play a role in SNAP-MCI, but pathologies involving the hippocampus and cerebrovascular disease may underlie the neurodegeneration and cognitive impairment in this group.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2015.08.029

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The rate of cognitive decline is significantly greater for cognitively impaired and CU individuals who have abnormalities in both an amyloid biomarker and a second biomarker type (CSF T-tau or P-tau, atrophy, or hypometabolism) in comparison to individuals who have neither or only one of these biomarker abnormalities.

    “The rate of cognitive decline is significantly greater for cognitively impaired and CU individuals who have abnormalities in both an amyloid biomarker and a second biomarker type (which could be CSF T-tau or P-tau, atrophy, or hypometabolism) in comparison to individuals who have neither or only one of these biomarker abnormalities [30–35,39,40,42–45].”

    From NIA‐AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease (2018) · cites this paper as [40]

    Results §3.1 reports a higher 12- and 24-month dementia conversion rate for the amyloid-positive, neurodegeneration-positive MCI group than for the amyloid-negative, neurodegeneration-positive group; Discussion §4 says the dual-positive group had the worst outcomes. The paper does not establish the claimed rate of cognitive decline across all comparator groups or in cognitively unimpaired individuals. Its primary neurodegeneration classification uses atrophy or hypometabolism, not CSF tau. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The combination of an abnormal MRI, CSF T-tau, or FDG PET study with an abnormal amyloid biomarker provides much more powerful prediction of future cognitive decline than an abnormal amyloid study alone.

    “However, the combination of an abnormal MRI, CSF T-tau, or FDG PET study with an abnormal amyloid biomarker provides much more powerful prediction of future cognitive decline [30–35,39,40,42–45] than an abnormal amyloid study alone.”

    From NIA‐AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease (2018) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Methods (§2.5; page unavailable) classify MCI participants by amyloid status and neurodegeneration measured with hippocampal volume or FDG-PET. The Discussion (§4; page unavailable) reports that the amyloid-positive, neurodegeneration-positive group had the worst outcomes, including 42.4% conversion to dementia at 12 months. This supports the direction of the claim, but the paper does not establish that the combination is a much more powerful predictor than amyloid alone, and it does not use CSF total tau in that outcome classification. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wisse, L. E. M., Butala, N., Das, S. R., Davatzikos, C., Dickerson, B. C., Vaishnavi, S. N., Yushkevich, P. A., & Wolk, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Wisse, Laura E.M.
Venue
Neurobiology of Aging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
36
Issue
12
Pages
3152-3162
ISSN
0197-4580 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1440144999
Cited by
78
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 6
FWCI
8.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurobiology of Aging (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01 AG037376, P30 AG010124, R01 AG040271)
  • Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI)
  • National Institutes of Health (U01 AG024904)
  • DOD (W81XWH-12-2–0012)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  • Alzheimer's Association
  • Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation
  • Araclon Biotech
  • BioClinica, Inc
  • Biogen Idec Inc
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
  • Eisai Inc
  • Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • EuroImmun
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
  • Genentech, Inc
  • Fujirebio
  • GE Healthcare
  • IXICO Ltd
  • Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC
  • Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC
  • Medpace, Inc
  • Merck & Co, Inc
  • Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC
  • NeuroRx Research
  • Neurotrack Technologies
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
  • Pfizer Inc
  • Piramal Imaging
  • Servier
  • Synarc Inc
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
mild cognitive impairment, amyloid-beta 42, neurodegeneration, hippocampal volume, FDG-PET hypometabolism, white matter hyperintensities, conversion to Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, cerebrovascular disease, florbetapir, tau protein
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Cognition, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Nerve Degeneration, Peptide Fragments, Amyloid beta-Peptides, Neuroimaging, Cognitive Dysfunction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review