CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Frequency of Biologically Defined Alzheimer Disease in Relation to Age, Sex, APOE ε4, and Cognitive Impairment

Open access
Therriault, Joseph, Pascoal, Tharick A., Benedet, Andrea L., Tissot, Cecile, Savard, Melissa, Chamoun, Mira, Lussier, Firoza, Kang, Min Su, Berzgin, Gleb, Wang, Tina, Fernandes-Arias, Jaime, Massarweh, Gassan, Soucy, Jean-Paul, Vitali, Paolo, Saha-Chaudhuri, Paramita, Gauthier, Serge, Rosa-Neto, Pedro·2021·Neurology
DOI 10.1212/wnl.0000000000011416PMC PMC8055338
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective To assess the frequency of biologically defined Alzheimer disease (AD) in relation to age, sex, APOE ε4, and clinical diagnosis in a prospective cohort study evaluated with amyloid-PET and tau-PET. Methods We assessed cognitively unimpaired (CU) elderly (n = 166), patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (n = 77), and patients with probable AD dementia (n = 62) who underwent evaluation by dementia specialists and neuropsychologists in addition to amyloid-PET with [18F]AZD4694 and tau-PET with [18F]MK6240. Individuals were grouped according to their AD biomarker profile. Positive predictive value for biologically defined AD was assessed in relation to clinical diagnosis. Frequency of AD biomarker profiles was assessed using logistic regressions with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The clinical diagnosis of probable AD dementia demonstrated good agreement with biologically defined AD (positive predictive value 85.2%). A total of 7.88% of CU were positive for both amyloid-PET and tau-PET. Frequency of biologically defined AD increased with age (OR 1.14; p < 0.0001) and frequency of APOE ε4 allele carriers (single ε4: OR 3.82; p < 0.0001; double ε4: OR 17.55, p < 0.0001). Conclusion Whereas we observed strong, but not complete, agreement between clinically defined probable AD dementia and biomarker positivity for both β-amyloid and tau, we also observed that biologically defined AD was not rare in CU elderly. Abnormal tau-PET was almost exclusively observed in individuals with abnormal amyloid-PET. Our results highlight that even in tertiary care memory clinics, detailed evaluation by dementia specialists systematically underestimates the frequency of biologically defined AD and related entities. Classification of Evidence This study provides Class I evidence that biologically defined AD (abnormal amyloid PET and tau PET) was observed in 85.2% of people with clinically defined AD and 7.88% of CU elderly.

Overview

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 · 10.1212/wnl.0000000000011416

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Study Flowchart aMCI = amnestic mild cognitive impairment; CBS = corticobasal syndrome; CU = cognitively unimpaired; DLB = dementia with Lewy bodies; FTD = frontotemporal dementia; pAD = probable Alzheimer disease; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy.
Figure 1 Study Flowchart aMCI = amnestic mild cognitive impairment; CBS = corticobasal syndrome; CU = cognitively unimpaired; DLB = dementia with Lewy bodies; FTD = frontotemporal dementia; pAD = probable Alzheimer disease; PSP = progressive supranuclear palsy.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Associations Between Alzheimer Disease (AD) Biomarker Status and Clinical Impairment AD biomarker status according to Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). Each plot represents individuals grouped according to CDR, with bar colors corresponding to AD biomarker status. Individuals with CDR 0 were the most likely to be AD biomarker–negative (72.3%). Despite lower frequency, 8.1% of cognitively unimpaired individuals were positive for both amyloid- and tau-PET biomarkers. Individuals with a CDR of 0.5 displayed heterogeneous patterns of AD biomarkers, with under 40% being biomarker-negative and under 50% being positive for both amyloid- and tau-PET. Individuals with a CDR of 1 were most likely to be positive for both amyloid- and tau-PET biomarkers (84.2%). Finally, 100% of individuals with AD dementia and a CDR of 2 were positive for both amyloid- and tau-PET biomarkers. A−T− = amyloid-negative/tau-negative (normal AD biomarkers); A+T− = amyloid-positive/tau-negative (AD pathologic change); A−T+ = amyloid-negative/tau-positive (non-AD pathologic change); A+T+ = amyloid-positive/tau positive (biological AD).
Figure 2 Associations Between Alzheimer Disease (AD) Biomarker Status and Clinical Impairment AD biomarker status according to Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). Each plot represents individuals grouped according to CDR, with bar colors corresponding to AD biomarker status. Individuals with CDR 0 were the most likely to be AD biomarker–negative (72.3%). Despite lower frequency, 8.1% of cognitively unimpaired individuals were positive for both amyloid- and tau-PET biomarkers. Individuals with a CDR of 0.5 displayed heterogeneous patterns of AD biomarkers, with under 40% being biomarker-negative and under 50% being positive for both amyloid- and tau-PET. Individuals with a CDR of 1 were most likely to be positive for both amyloid- and tau-PET biomarkers (84.2%). Finally, 100% of individuals with AD dementia and a CDR of 2 were positive for both amyloid- and tau-PET biomarkers. A−T− = amyloid-negative/tau-negative (normal AD biomarkers); A+T− = amyloid-positive/tau-negative (AD pathologic change); A−T+ = amyloid-negative/tau-positive (non-AD pathologic change); A+T+ = amyloid-positive/tau positive (biological AD).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Frequency of Biologically Defined Alzheimer Disease (AD) Spectrum Entities Stratified by Age Frequency of AD biomarkers rises with age. Individuals are grouped by AD biomarker status, with colored bars representing each age group. (A) Tau positivity defined in the temporal meta–region of interest. Individuals below the age of 65 were the most likely to be AD biomarker–negative (p < 0.0001). Correspondingly, the likelihood of being AD biomarker–negative decreased with each age group. In contrast, the frequency of biologically defined AD (A+T+) increased with age (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant association between non-AD pathologic change and age (p = 0.3). (B) When defining tau positivity using Braak I–II regions, we observed a higher frequency of the A−T+ biomarker profile until age 75. We also observed higher frequency of the A+T+ biomarker profile. Individuals with early-onset AD are excluded from this figure and presented in supplementary figure 3 (available at doi.org/10.5061/dryad.69p8cz8zr).
Figure 3 Frequency of Biologically Defined Alzheimer Disease (AD) Spectrum Entities Stratified by Age Frequency of AD biomarkers rises with age. Individuals are grouped by AD biomarker status, with colored bars representing each age group. (A) Tau positivity defined in the temporal meta–region of interest. Individuals below the age of 65 were the most likely to be AD biomarker–negative (p < 0.0001). Correspondingly, the likelihood of being AD biomarker–negative decreased with each age group. In contrast, the frequency of biologically defined AD (A+T+) increased with age (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant association between non-AD pathologic change and age (p = 0.3). (B) When defining tau positivity using Braak I–II regions, we observed a higher frequency of the A−T+ biomarker profile until age 75. We also observed higher frequency of the A+T+ biomarker profile. Individuals with early-onset AD are excluded from this figure and presented in supplementary figure 3 (available at doi.org/10.5061/dryad.69p8cz8zr).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Association Between APOE4 and Biologically Defined Alzheimer Disease (AD) Spectrum Entities Relative frequency of APOE ε4 status (ε4 noncarrier/ε4 heterozygous/ε4 homozygous) in relation to the 4 biologically defined AD spectrum entities. APOE ε4 displayed a gene–dose association with both amyloid-β and tau-PET positivity. Zero percent APOE ε4 of homozygotes were A−T+. When excluding the 4 autosomal dominant AD cases, we observed a slightly lower frequency (17% vs 19%) of A+T+ in individuals who were APOE ε4 noncarriers.
Figure 4 Association Between APOE4 and Biologically Defined Alzheimer Disease (AD) Spectrum Entities Relative frequency of APOE ε4 status (ε4 noncarrier/ε4 heterozygous/ε4 homozygous) in relation to the 4 biologically defined AD spectrum entities. APOE ε4 displayed a gene–dose association with both amyloid-β and tau-PET positivity. Zero percent APOE ε4 of homozygotes were A−T+. When excluding the 4 autosomal dominant AD cases, we observed a slightly lower frequency (17% vs 19%) of A+T+ in individuals who were APOE ε4 noncarriers.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Biologically Defined Alzheimer Disease (AD) Spectrum Entities Stratified by Sex Relative frequency of AD spectrum entities as stratified by sex. We did not observe statistically significant differences in the frequency of AD spectrum entities between men and women based on dichotomous cutoffs.
Figure 5 Biologically Defined Alzheimer Disease (AD) Spectrum Entities Stratified by Sex Relative frequency of AD spectrum entities as stratified by sex. We did not observe statistically significant differences in the frequency of AD spectrum entities between men and women based on dichotomous cutoffs.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Concordance Between Biologically and Clinically Defined Alzheimer Disease (AD) Whereas the majority of cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants had negative AD biomarkers, approximately 8% had biologically defined AD. Conversely, whereas the majority of patients with pAD dementia were positive for both amyloid-β and tau-PET, there was imperfect agreement, with 15% of patients with pAD dementia being amyloid-PET–negative but tau-PET–positive (5%), amyloid-PET–positive but tau-PET–negative (6.5%), or both amyloid-PET and tau-PET–negative (3.3%). Amyloid-PET positivity was more compatible with normal cognition than tau-PET positivity. A−T− = amyloid-negative/tau-negative (normal AD biomarkers); A+T− = amyloid-positive/tau-negative (AD pathologic change); A−T+ = amyloid-negative/tau-positive (non-AD pathologic change); A+T+ = amyloid-positive/tau positive (biological AD).
Figure 6 Concordance Between Biologically and Clinically Defined Alzheimer Disease (AD) Whereas the majority of cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants had negative AD biomarkers, approximately 8% had biologically defined AD. Conversely, whereas the majority of patients with pAD dementia were positive for both amyloid-β and tau-PET, there was imperfect agreement, with 15% of patients with pAD dementia being amyloid-PET–negative but tau-PET–positive (5%), amyloid-PET–positive but tau-PET–negative (6.5%), or both amyloid-PET and tau-PET–negative (3.3%). Amyloid-PET positivity was more compatible with normal cognition than tau-PET positivity. A−T− = amyloid-negative/tau-negative (normal AD biomarkers); A+T− = amyloid-positive/tau-negative (AD pathologic change); A−T+ = amyloid-negative/tau-positive (non-AD pathologic change); A+T+ = amyloid-positive/tau positive (biological AD).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 91

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Therriault, J., Pascoal, T. A., Benedet, A. L., Tissot, C., Savard, M., Chamoun, M., Lussier, F., Kang, M. S., Berzgin, G., Wang, T., Fernandes-Arias, J., Massarweh, G., Soucy, J.-P., Vitali, P., Saha-Chaudhuri, P., Gauthier, S., & Rosa-Neto, P.
Affiliations
  • Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
  • From the Translational Neuroimaging Laboratory, The McGill University Research Centre for Studies in Aging, Douglas Hospital (J.T., T.A.P., A.L.B., C.T., M.S., M.C., F.L., M.S.K., G.B., T.W., J.F.-A., S.G., P.R.-N.), and the Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery (J.T., T.A.P., A.L.B., C.T., M.C., F.L., M.S.K., G.B., T.W., J.F.-A., J.-P.S., P.V., S.G., P.R.-N.), Psychiatry (S.G., P.R.-N.), Radiochemistry (G.M.), and Epidemiology and Biostatistics (P.S.-C.), McGill University, Montreal; and...
ORCID
Venue
Neurology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2021-02-16
Volume
96
Issue
7
Pages
e975-e985
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
DOI
10.1212/wnl.0000000000011416
PMC
PMC8055338
OpenAlex
W3118160302
Cited by
91
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 4
FWCI
7.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • McGill University
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
amyloid PET, tau PET, APOE ε4, amnestic mild cognitive impairment, positive predictive value, sex differences, [18F]MK-6240
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Brain, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Sex Factors, Amyloid beta-Peptides, tau Proteins, Positron-Emission Tomography, Apolipoprotein E4, 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