Optimal Combination of Biomarkers for Predicting MCI to AD Conversion Selected Using a Bayesian Framework
Peng Yu,Robert A. Dean,Stephen D. Hall,Yuan Qi,Gopalan Sethuraman,Brian A. Willis,Yong Yang,Eric R. Siemers,Ferenc Martenyi,Johannes T. Tauscher,Adam J. Schwarz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2010.05.1674
2010-01-01
Abstract:Several imaging, CSF and genetic biomarkers have been shown to individually correlate with disease stage, and with progression from amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's Disease (AD). The use of a combination of biomarkers may increase the accuracy of predicting MCI to AD conversion. The optimal combination, and the trade-offs between the cost of additional biomarkers and any prediction accuracy gains they provide, are key questions in planning and optimizing clinical trials targeting this subpopulation. 28 baseline numeric and categorical endpoints (ADAS-cog scores, APOE genotype, CSF measurements, vMRI by UCSD and FDG-PET by the University of Utah) from 89 MCI subjects in the Jan 2010 ADNI data update were analyzed. 31 of these subjects converted to AD within a follow-up interval of 3 years. We applied a Bayesian method called predictive Automated Relevance Determination (pred-ARD) to build a classification model and select the most predictive biomarkers ranked by their contributions to the classification. The sensitivity of prediction performance to the absence of imaging modalities was tested by repeating the process without endpoints from (1) FDG-PET; (2) MRI; and (3) both. Of the 28 endpoints, a combination of 9 was selected by the pred-ARD model to best predict MCI to AD conversion within 3 years. Using leave-one-out (LOO) cross validation, the prediction sensitivity was 77% with an overall accuracy of 70%. Ranked by their weights, volumetric MRI endpoints provided the best prediction, followed by FDG-PET, p-tau181 in CSF, and APOE genotype. The comparison of different initial biomarker sets also showed that the true detection rate measured by LOO decreases by 3%, 12% and 22% when only FDG-PET, only MRI, or both imaging modalities were left out (Figure 1).