Browsing by Author "Tomaszewski Farias, Sarah"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A harmonized memory composite score for cross‐cohort Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia research: development and validation
    (Wiley, 2025-01-03) Sanderson-Cimino, Mark E.; Gross, Alden L.; Gaynor, Leslie S.; Paolillo, Emily W.; Casaletto, Kaitlin B.; Chatterjee, Ankita; Albert, Marilyn S.; Apostolova, Liana G.; Boersema, Brooke; Boxer, Adam L.; Boeve, Brad F.; Clark, Lindsay R.; La Joie, Renaud; Eloyan, Ani; Tomaszewski Farias, Sarah; Gonzales, Mitzi M.; Hammers, Dustin B.; Wise, Amy B.; Cobigo, Yann; Yballa, Claire; Schonhaut, Daniel R.; Hampstead, Benjamin M.; Mechanic-Hamilton, Dawn; Miller, Bruce L.; Rabinovici, Gil D.; Rascovsky, Katya; Ringman, John M.; Rosen, Howard J.; Ryman, Sephira; Salmon, David P.; Smith, Glenn E.; Decarli, Charles; Kramer, Joel H.; Staffaroni, Adam M.; Neurology, School of Medicine
    Background: The Uniform Data Set (UDS) neuropsychological battery, administered across Alzheimer’s Disease Centers (ADC), includes memory tests but lacks a list‐learning paradigm. ADCs often supplement the UDS with their own preferred list‐learning task. Given the importance of list‐learning for characterizing memory, we aimed to develop a harmonized memory score that incorporates UDS memory tests while allowing centers to contribute differing list‐learning tasks. Method: We applied item‐banking confirmatory factor analysis to develop a composite memory score in 5,287 participants (mean age 67.1; SD = 12.2) recruited through 18 ADCs and four consortia (DiverseVCID, MarkVCID, ALLFTD, LEADS) who completed UDS memory tasks (used as linking‐items) and one of five list‐learning tasks. All analyses used linear regression. We tested whether memory scores were affected by which list‐learning task was administered. To assess construct validity, we tested associations of memory scores with demographics, disease severity (CDR Box Score), an independent memory task (TabCAT Favorites, n = 675), and hippocampal volume (n = 811). We compared performances between cognitively unimpaired (n = 279), AD‐biomarker+ MCI (n = 26), and AD‐biomarker+ dementia (n = 98). In a subsample with amyloid‐ and tau‐PET (n = 49), we compared memory scores from participants with positive vs negative scans determined using established quantitative cutoffs. Result: Model fit indices were excellent (e.g., CFI = 0.998) and factor loadings were strong (0.43‐0.93). Differences in list‐learning task had a negligible effect on scores (average Cohen’s d = 0.11). Higher memory scores were significantly (p’s<.001) correlated with younger age (β = ‐0.18), lower CDR Box Scores (β = ‐0.63), female sex (β = 0.12), higher education (β = 0.19), larger hippocampal volume (β = 0.42), and an independent memory task (β = 0.71, p<0.001). The memory composite declined in a stepwise fashion by diagnosis (cognitively unimpaired>MCI>AD dementia, p<0.001). On average, amyloid‐PET positivity was associated with lower composite scores, but was not statistically significant (β = ‐0.34; p = 0.25; d = 0.40). Tau‐PET positivity was associated with worse performance, demonstrating a large effect size (β = ‐0.75; p<0.002; d = 0.91). Conclusion: The harmonized memory score developed in a large national sample was stable regardless of contributing list‐learning task and its validity for cross‐cohort ADRD research is supported by expected associations with demographics, clinical measures, and Alzheimer’s biomarkers. A processing script will be made available to enhance cross‐cohort ADRD research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Adverse Social Exposome by Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) Neuropathology for a National Cohort of Brain Donors within the Neighborhoods Study
    (Wiley, 2025-01-09) Kind, Amy J. H.; Bendlin, Barbara B.; Keller, Sarah A.; Powell, W. Ryan; DeWitt, Amanda; Cheng, Yixuan; Chamberlain, Luke; Lyons Boone, Brittney; Miller, Megan J.; Vik, Stacie M.; Abner, Erin L.; Alosco, Michael L.; Apostolova, Liana G.; Bakulski, Kelly M.; Barnes, Lisa L.; Bateman, James R.; Beach, Thomas G.; Bennett, David A.; Brewer, James B.; Carrion, Carmen; Chodosh, Joshua; Craft, Suzanne; Croff, Raina; Fabio, Anthony; Tomaszewski Farias, Sarah; Goldstein, Felicia; Henderson, Victor W.; Karikari, Thomas; Kofler, Julia; Kucharska-Newton, Anna M.; Lamar, Melissa; Lanata, Serggio; Lepping, Rebecca J.; Lingler, Jennifer H.; Lockhart, Samuel N.; Mahnken, Jonathan D.; Marsh, Karyn; Meyer, Oanh L.; Miller, Bruce L.; Morris, Jill K.; Neugroschl, Judith A.; O'Connor, Maureen K.; Paulson, Henry L.; Perrin, Richard J.; Pierce, Aimee; Raji, Cyrus A.; Reiman, Eric M.; Risacher, Shannon L.; Rissman, Robert A.; Rodriguez Espinoza, Patricia; Sano, Mary; Saykin, Andrew J.; Serrano, Geidy E.; Sultzer, David L.; Whitmer, Rachel A.; Wisniewski, Thomas; Woltjer, Randall; Zhu, Carolyn W.; Neurology, School of Medicine
    Background: Adverse social exposome (indexed by high national Area Deprivation Index [ADI]) is linked to structural inequities and increased risk of clinical dementia diagnosis, yet linkage to ADRD neuropathology remains largely unknown. Early work from single site brain banks suggests a relationship, but assessment in large national cohorts is needed to increase generalizability and depth, particularly for rarer neuropathology findings. Objective: Determine the association between adverse social exposome by ADI and ADRD neuropathology for brain donors from 21 Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC) brain banks as part of the on‐going Neighborhoods Study. Methods: All brain donors in participating sites with neuropathology data deposited at the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) and identifiers for ADI linkage (N = 8,637; Figure 1) were included. Geocoded donor addresses were linked to time‐concordant national ADI percentiles for year of death, categorized into standard groupings of low (ADI 1‐19), medium (20‐49) and high (50‐100) ADI. Neuropathological findings were drawn from NACC and reflected standard assessment practices at time of donation. Logistic regression models, adjusted for sex and age at death, assessed relationships between high ADI and neuropathology findings. Results: Of the N = 8,637 brain donors (Table 1), 2,071 of 2,366 assessed (88%) had AD pathology by NIA‐AA criteria; 4,197 of 6,929 assessed (61%) had cerebral amyloid angiopathy; 2582 of 8092 assessed (32%) had Lewy body pathology; 391 of 2351 assessed (17%) had non‐AD tauopathy; and 586 of 1680 assessed (35%) had TDP‐43 pathology. 2,126(25%) were high ADI; 3,171(37%) medium ADI and 3,340(38%) low ADI with 51% female and average age at death of 81.9 years. As compared to low ADI donors, high ADI brain donors had adjusted odds = 1.35 (95% CI = 0.98‐1.86, p‐value = 0.06) for AD pathology; 1.10 (0.98–1.25, p = 0.11) for cerebral amyloid angiopathy; 1.37 (1.21–1.55, p<0.01) for Lewy body; 1.09 (0.83–1.44, p = 0.53) for non‐AD tauopathy; and 1.40 (1.08‐1.81, p = 0.01) for TDP‐43 pathology (Table 2). Conclusions: This first‐in‐field study provides evidence that the adverse social exposome (high ADI) is strongly associated with an increased risk of Lewy body, an increased risk of TDP‐43, and a trend towards increased AD pathology in a national cohort of brain donors.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Over‐Representation of Extremely Wealthy Neighborhood Social Exposomes for Brain Donors within Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center Brain Banks assessed by the Neighborhoods Study
    (Wiley, 2025-01-09) Kind, Amy J. H.; Bendlin, Barbara B.; Powell, W. Ryan; DeWitt, Amanda; Cheng, Yixuan; Chamberlain, Luke; Sharrow, Jessica; Lyons Boone, Brittney; Abner, Erin L.; Alosco, Michael L.; Apostolova, Liana G.; Bakulski, Kelly M.; Barnes, Lisa L.; Bateman, James R.; Beach, Thomas G.; Bennett, David A.; Brewer, James B.; Carrion, Carmen; Chodosh, Joshua; Craft, Suzanne; Croff, Raina; Fabio, Anthony; Tomaszewski Farias, Sarah; Goldstein, Felicia; Henderson, Victor W.; Karikari, Thomas K.; Kofler, Julia; Kucharska-Newton, Anna M.; Lamar, Melissa; Lanata, Serggio; Lepping, Rebecca J.; Lingler, Jennifer H.; Lockhart, Samuel N.; Mahnken, Jonathan D.; Marsh, Karyn; Meyer, Oanh L.; Miller, Bruce L.; Morris, Jill K.; Neugroschl, Judith A.; O'Connor, Maureen K.; Paulson, Henry L.; Perrin, Richard J.; Pettigrew, Corinne; Pierce, Aimee; Raji, Cyrus A.; Reiman, Eric M.; Risacher, Shannon L.; Rissman, Robert A.; Rodriguez Espinoza, Patricia; Sano, Mary; Saykin, Andrew J.; Serrano, Geidy E.; Soldan, Anja; Sultzer, David L.; Whitmer, Rachel A.; Wisniewski, Thomas; Woltjer, Randall; Zhu, Carolyn W.; Radiology and Imaging Sciences, School of Medicine
    Background: Adverse social exposome (indexed by national Area Deprivation Index [ADI] 80‐100 or ‘high ADI’) is linked to structural inequities and increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology. Twenty percent of the US population resides within high ADI areas, predominantly in inner cities, tribal reservations and rural areas. The percentage of brain donors from high ADI areas within the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC) brain bank system is unknown. Objective: Determine ADI for brain donors from 21 ADRC sites as part of the on‐going Neighborhoods Study. Methods: All brain donors in participating ADRC sites with NACC neuropathology data and personal identifiers for ADI linkage (N = 8,637) were included (Figure 1). Geocoded donor addresses were linked to time‐concordant ADI percentiles for year of death. Results: Overall, only 5.6% of ADRC brain donors (N = 488) resided in a high ADI (disadvantaged) neighborhood at death. The remaining donors resided in more advantaged neighborhoods, with nearly 40% of donors living in the wealthiest quintile of neighborhoods, and over 300 brain donors originating from the wealthiest 1% of US neighborhoods (Figure 2). Donors from high ADI (disadvantaged) neighborhoods identified as 87% White (n = 424), 11% Black (55), 1% Multiracial (6) and <1% other/unknown race (3), with 1% Hispanic (5). None identified as American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/Asian. In comparison, donors from low ADI neighborhoods were 94% White (n = 7680), 3% Black (273), 1% Multiracial (75), <1% American Indian/Alaska Native (11), <1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/Asian (60), and <1% other/unknown race (50), with 3% Hispanic (230). Sex distribution was similar (54%, 51% female, respectively). Inclusion of high ADI donors varied dramatically across the 21 ADRC brain banks from a low of 0.6% to high of 20% of all a site’s donors (Figure 3). Conclusions: ADI was determined for over 8,600 brain donors in the ADRC system, demonstrating a marked over‐representation of donors from very low ADI (extremely wealthy) neighborhoods, in addition to site‐to‐site variability. This is the first time a comprehensive cross‐sectional social exposome assessment of this nature has been performed, opening windows for additional mechanistic study of the social exposome on brain pathology. Life course ADI assessments are on‐going.