Kira Trares, Hannah Stocker, Joshua Stevenson-Hoare, Laura Perna, Bernd Holleczek, Konrad Beyreuther, Ben Schöttker, Hermann Brenner
{"title":"主观认知能力下降与多基因风险评分在预测全因痴呆症、阿尔茨海默病和血管性痴呆症方面的比较。","authors":"Kira Trares, Hannah Stocker, Joshua Stevenson-Hoare, Laura Perna, Bernd Holleczek, Konrad Beyreuther, Ben Schöttker, Hermann Brenner","doi":"10.1186/s13195-024-01559-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Polygenic risk scores (PRS) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are associated with the risk of developing dementia. It remains to examine whether they can improve the established cardiovascular risk factors aging and dementia (CAIDE) model and how their predictive abilities compare.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The CAIDE model was applied to a sub-sample of a large, population-based cohort study (n = 5,360; aged 50-75) and evaluated for the outcomes of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD) by calculating Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and the area under the curve (AUC). The improvement of the CAIDE model by PRS and SCD was further examined using the net reclassification improvement (NRI) method and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During 17 years of follow-up, 410 participants were diagnosed with dementia, including 139 AD and 152 VD diagnoses. Overall, the CAIDE model showed high discriminative ability for all outcomes, reaching AUCs of 0.785, 0.793, and 0.789 for all-cause dementia, AD, and VD, respectively. Adding information on SCD significantly increased NRI for all-cause dementia (4.4%, p = 0.04) and VD (7.7%, p = 0.01). In contrast, prediction models for AD further improved when PRS was added to the model (NRI, 8.4%, p = 0.03). When APOE ε4 carrier status was included (CAIDE Model 2), AUCs increased, but PRS and SCD did not further improve the prediction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Unlike PRS, information on SCD can be assessed more efficiently, and thus, the model including SCD can be more easily transferred to the clinical setting. Nevertheless, the two variables seem negligible if APOE ε4 carrier status is available.</p>","PeriodicalId":7516,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331600/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of subjective cognitive decline and polygenic risk score in the prediction of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.\",\"authors\":\"Kira Trares, Hannah Stocker, Joshua Stevenson-Hoare, Laura Perna, Bernd Holleczek, Konrad Beyreuther, Ben Schöttker, Hermann Brenner\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13195-024-01559-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Polygenic risk scores (PRS) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are associated with the risk of developing dementia. It remains to examine whether they can improve the established cardiovascular risk factors aging and dementia (CAIDE) model and how their predictive abilities compare.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The CAIDE model was applied to a sub-sample of a large, population-based cohort study (n = 5,360; aged 50-75) and evaluated for the outcomes of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD) by calculating Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and the area under the curve (AUC). The improvement of the CAIDE model by PRS and SCD was further examined using the net reclassification improvement (NRI) method and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During 17 years of follow-up, 410 participants were diagnosed with dementia, including 139 AD and 152 VD diagnoses. Overall, the CAIDE model showed high discriminative ability for all outcomes, reaching AUCs of 0.785, 0.793, and 0.789 for all-cause dementia, AD, and VD, respectively. Adding information on SCD significantly increased NRI for all-cause dementia (4.4%, p = 0.04) and VD (7.7%, p = 0.01). In contrast, prediction models for AD further improved when PRS was added to the model (NRI, 8.4%, p = 0.03). When APOE ε4 carrier status was included (CAIDE Model 2), AUCs increased, but PRS and SCD did not further improve the prediction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Unlike PRS, information on SCD can be assessed more efficiently, and thus, the model including SCD can be more easily transferred to the clinical setting. Nevertheless, the two variables seem negligible if APOE ε4 carrier status is available.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331600/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01559-9\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01559-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of subjective cognitive decline and polygenic risk score in the prediction of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.
Background: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are associated with the risk of developing dementia. It remains to examine whether they can improve the established cardiovascular risk factors aging and dementia (CAIDE) model and how their predictive abilities compare.
Methods: The CAIDE model was applied to a sub-sample of a large, population-based cohort study (n = 5,360; aged 50-75) and evaluated for the outcomes of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VD) by calculating Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and the area under the curve (AUC). The improvement of the CAIDE model by PRS and SCD was further examined using the net reclassification improvement (NRI) method and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).
Results: During 17 years of follow-up, 410 participants were diagnosed with dementia, including 139 AD and 152 VD diagnoses. Overall, the CAIDE model showed high discriminative ability for all outcomes, reaching AUCs of 0.785, 0.793, and 0.789 for all-cause dementia, AD, and VD, respectively. Adding information on SCD significantly increased NRI for all-cause dementia (4.4%, p = 0.04) and VD (7.7%, p = 0.01). In contrast, prediction models for AD further improved when PRS was added to the model (NRI, 8.4%, p = 0.03). When APOE ε4 carrier status was included (CAIDE Model 2), AUCs increased, but PRS and SCD did not further improve the prediction.
Conclusions: Unlike PRS, information on SCD can be assessed more efficiently, and thus, the model including SCD can be more easily transferred to the clinical setting. Nevertheless, the two variables seem negligible if APOE ε4 carrier status is available.
期刊介绍:
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal that focuses on translational research into Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. It publishes open-access basic research, clinical trials, drug discovery and development studies, and epidemiologic studies. The journal also includes reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, debates, and reports. All articles published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy are included in several reputable databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science) and Scopus.