. Association of Cerebral Amyloid-β Aggregation With Cognitive Functioning in Persons Without Dementia. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 1;75(1):84-95. PubMed.

Recommends

Please login to recommend the paper.

Comments

  1. After having read the manuscript, I am struck (again!) by the powerful predictive effect of age and ApoE4 on the likelihood of high amyloid burden in clinically normal (CN) older adults. Time and again this has been shown, however, it is interesting to see another demonstration of the importance of these factors in such a large multicenter study.

    Another important component of this study that deserves a remark up front (although, Jansen and colleagues have previously published from these data in 2015), is the sheer size of the sample. Even with ~20 percent missing data across the cohorts, this study reports on ~2000 CN individuals with a memory score, which is quite staggering. The strength of this type of study is the ability to have the statistical power to detect relatively small effects, which is arguably the case with the cross-sectional relationship between amyloid and cognition, as accurately acknowledged by the authors. With this large dataset, it is clear that the MMSE screening tool does not perform as well as other memory tests to predict high amyloid burden, however, it is slightly disheartening to see that “low performance” on the combined aggregate memory tests did not survive forward selection to be included as a sensitive predictor of high amyloid. I agree with the authors, however, in that I don’t think that this throws out the idea of a cognitive test being a useful screening tool in clinical trials; the current analyses are attempting to determine the effect of “low memory” rather than the effect of a neuropsychological task per se. The rather large limitation of big data analysis is that cruder data gradients need to be applied in order to make conservative estimates about an effect across a range of different memory tests. Here, the authors have been somewhat limited in their ability to make a final statement about the efficacy of using a memory test as a screening tool, particularly those that are sensitive and challenging neuropsychological measures of memory. In this case, more sophisticated data harmonization techniques will need to be applied (i.e., item response theory or latent factor analysis, Gross et al., 2015) in order to better align cognitive test performance across studies.

    Further, and in the same vein, it will be nice to see big data analyses being reported with a continuous measure of amyloid rather than amyloid status alone. While harmonizing across CSF and PET measures is perhaps a future endeavor, more and more PET studies are being aggregated to allow for much larger analyses. Reprocessing of PET data, and transformations across different PET tracers, will allow for greater ease when analyzing and interpreting this data, which will be very exciting, and will give greater insights into gradients of amyloidosis and cognitive decline that are more likely to represent the insidious nature of the disease. 

    With regard to age, that low memory performance doubled the likelihood of high amyloid over the age of 80 is fascinating. One issue that is not an easy one to handle is related to survivor bias. At what point does the low memory/high amyloid group become so sparse with survivors that it becomes an entirely different group from the low memory/low amyloid group altogether? Clearly, the next stage in this project will be to look ahead to longitudinal and survival analyses—which I am looking forward to reading!

    References:

    . Prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology in persons without dementia: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2015 May 19;313(19):1924-38. PubMed.

    . Effects of education and race on cognitive decline: An integrative study of generalizability versus study-specific results. Psychol Aging. 2015 Dec;30(4):863-80. Epub 2015 Nov 2 PubMed.

    View all comments by Rachel Buckley

Make a Comment

To make a comment you must login or register.