A large-scale multi-centre study characterising atrophy heterogeneity in Alzheimer's disease
Vikram Venkatraghavan,Damiano Archetti,Pierrick Bourgeat,Chenyang Jiang,Mara ten Kate,Anna C. van Loenhoud,Rik Ossenkoppele,Charlotte E. Teunissen,Elsmarieke van de Giessen,Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg,Giovanni B. Frisoni,Béla Weiss,Zoltán Vidnyánszky,Tibor Auer,Stanley Durrleman,Alberto Redolfi,Simon M. Laws,Paul Maruff,for the Australian Imaging Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study,for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative,for the E-DADS Consortium,Neil P. Oxtoby,Andre Altmann,Daniel C. Alexander,Wiesje M. van der Flier,Frederik Barkhof,Betty M. Tijms
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.27.24312499
2024-08-28
Abstract:Background: Previous studies reported on the existence of atrophy-based Alzheimer's disease (AD) subtypes that associate with distinct clinical symptoms. However, the consistency of AD atrophy subtypes across approaches remains uncertain. This large-scale study aims to assess subtype concordance in individuals using two methods of data-driven subtyping.
Methods: We included n=10,011 patients across the clinical spectrum from 10 AD cohorts across Europe, United States, and Australia, and extracted regional volumes using Freesurfer v7.1.1. To characterise atrophy heterogeneity in the AD continuum, we introduced a hybrid two-step approach called Snowphlake (Staging NeurOdegeneration With PHenotype informed progression timeLine of biomarKErs) to identify subtypes and sequence of atrophy-events within each subtype. We compared our results with SuStaIn (Subtype and Stage Inference) which jointly estimates both, and was trained and validated similarly. The training dataset included Aβ+ participants (n=1,195), and a control group of Aβ- cognitively unimpaired participants (n=1,692). We validated model staging within each subtype, in a held-out clinical-validation dataset (n=6,362) comprising patients across the clinical spectrum irrespective of Aβ biomarker status and an independent external dataset (n=762). Furthermore, we validated the clinical significance of the detected subtypes, in a subset of Aβ+ validation datasets with n=1,796 in the held-out sample and n=159 in the external dataset. Lastly, we performed concordance analysis to assess the consistency between the methods.
Results: In the AD dementia (AD-D) training data, Snowphlake identified four subtypes: diffuse cortical atrophy (21.1%,age 67.5±9.3), parieto-temporal atrophy (19.8%,age 60.9±7.9), frontal atrophy (24.8%,age 67.6±8.8) and subcortical atrophy (25.1%,68.3±8.2). The subtypes assigned in Aβ+ validation datasets were associated with alterations in specific cognitive domains (Cohen's f: [0.15-0.33]), while staging correlated with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores (R: [-0.51 to -0.28]) in the validation datasets. SuStaIn also identified four subtypes: typical (55.7%,age 66.7±7.8), limbic-predominant (24.2%,age 72.2±6.6), hippocampal-sparing (14.6%,age 62.8±6.9), and subcortical (0.8%,age 68.2±7.6). The subtypes assigned in Aβ+ validation datasets using SuStaIn were also associated with alterations in specific cognitive domains (Cohen's f:[0.17-0.34]), while staging correlated with MMSE scores in the validation datasets (R: [-0.54 to -0.26]). However, we observed low concordance between Snowphlake and SuStaIn, with 39.7% of AD-D patients consistently grouped in concordant subtypes by both the methods.
Conclusion: In this multi-cohort study, both Snowphlake and SuStaIn identified four subtypes that were associated with different symptom profiles and atrophy-severity measures that were associated with global cognition. The low concordance between Snowphlake and SuStaIn suggests that heterogeneity may rather be a spectrum than discretised by subtypes.