Longitudinal clinical, cognitive and biomarker profiles in dominantly inherited versus sporadic early-onset Alzheimer's disease

Approximately 5% of Alzheimer's disease cases have an early age at onset (<65 years), with 5-10% of these cases attributed to dominantly inherited mutations and the remainder considered as sporadic. The extent to which dominantly inherited and sporadic early-onset Alzheimer's disease overlap is unknown. In this study, we explored the clinical, cognitive and biomarker profiles of early-onset Alzheimer's disease, focusing on commonalities and distinctions between dominantly inherited and sporadic cases. Our analysis included 117 participants with dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease enrolled in the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network and 118 individuals with sporadic early-onset Alzheimer's disease enrolled at the University of California San Francisco Alzheimer's Disease Research Center. Baseline differences in clinical and biomarker profiles between both groups were compared using t-tests. Differences in the rates of decline were compared using linear mixed-effects models. Individuals with dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease exhibited an earlier age-at-symptom onset compared with the sporadic group [43.4 (SD +/- 8.5) years versus 54.8 (SD +/- 5.0) years, respectively, P < 0.001]. Sporadic cases showed a higher frequency of atypical clinical presentations relative to dominantly inherited (56.8% versus 8.5%, respectively) and a higher frequency of APOE-epsilon 4 (50.0% versus 28.2%, P = 0.001). Compared with sporadic early onset, motor manifestations were higher in the dominantly inherited cohort [32.5% versus 16.9% at baseline (P = 0.006) and 46.1% versus 25.4% at last visit (P = 0.001)]. At baseline, the sporadic early-onset group performed worse on category fluency (P < 0.001), Trail Making Test Part B (P < 0.001) and digit span (P < 0.001). Longitudinally, both groups demonstrated similar rates of cognitive and functional decline in the early stages. After 10 years from symptom onset, dominantly inherited participants experienced a greater decline as measured by Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes [3.63 versus 1.82 points (P = 0.035)]. CSF amyloid beta-42 levels were comparable [244 (SD +/- 39.3) pg/ml dominantly inherited versus 296 (SD +/- 24.8) pg/ml sporadic early onset, P = 0.06]. CSF phosphorylated tau at threonine 181 levels were higher in the dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease cohort (87.3 versus 59.7 pg/ml, P = 0.005), but no significant differences were found for t-tau levels (P = 0.35). In summary, sporadic and inherited Alzheimer's disease differed in baseline profiles;sporadic early onset is best distinguished from dominantly inherited by later age at onset, high frequency of atypical clinical presentations and worse executive performance at baseline. Despite these differences, shared pathways in longitudinal clinical decline and CSF biomarkers suggest potential common therapeutic targets for both populations, offering valuable insights for future research and clinical trial design

Development and Evaluation of Machine Learning in Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Detecting Metastases in Patients With Lung or Colon Cancer: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study

OBJECTIVES: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) has been demonstrated to be efficient and cost-effective for cancer staging. The study aim was to develop a machine learning (ML) algorithm to improve radiologists' sensitivity and specificity for metastasis detection and reduce reading times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 438 prospectively collected WB-MRI scans from multicenter Streamline studies (February 2013-September 2016) was undertaken. Disease sites were manually labeled using Streamline reference standard. Whole-body MRI scans were randomly allocated to training and testing sets. A model for malignant lesion detection was developed based on convolutional neural networks and a 2-stage training strategy. The final algorithm generated lesion probability heat maps. Using a concurrent reader paradigm, 25 radiologists (18 experienced, 7 inexperienced in WB-/MRI) were randomly allocated WB-MRI scans with or without ML support to detect malignant lesions over 2 or 3 reading rounds. Reads were undertaken in the setting of a diagnostic radiology reading room between November 2019 and March 2020. Reading times were recorded by a scribe. Prespecified analysis included sensitivity, specificity, interobserver agreement, and reading time of radiology readers to detect metastases with or without ML support. Reader performance for detection of the primary tumor was also evaluated. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-three evaluable WB-MRI scans were allocated to algorithm training (245) or radiology testing (50 patients with metastases, from primary 117 colon [n = 117] or lung [n = 71] cancer). Among a total 562 reads by experienced radiologists over 2 reading rounds, per-patient specificity was 86.2% (ML) and 87.7% (non-ML) (-1.5% difference; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.4%, 3.5%; P = 0.39). Sensitivity was 66.0% (ML) and 70.0% (non-ML) (-4.0% difference; 95% CI, -13.5%, 5.5%; P = 0.344). Among 161 reads by inexperienced readers, per-patient specificity in both groups was 76.3% (0% difference; 95% CI, -15.0%, 15.0%; P = 0.613), with sensitivity of 73.3% (ML) and 60.0% (non-ML) (13.3% difference; 95% CI, -7.9%, 34.5%; P = 0.313). Per-site specificity was high (>90%) for all metastatic sites and experience levels. There was high sensitivity for the detection of primary tumors (lung cancer detection rate of 98.6% with and without ML [0.0% difference; 95% CI, -2.0%, 2.0%; P = 1.00], colon cancer detection rate of 89.0% with and 90.6% without ML [-1.7% difference; 95% CI, -5.6%, 2.2%; P = 0.65]). When combining all reads from rounds 1 and 2, reading times fell by 6.2% (95% CI, -22.8%, 10.0%) when using ML. Round 2 read-times fell by 32% (95% CI, 20.8%, 42.8%) compared with round 1. Within round 2, there was a significant decrease in read-time when using ML support, estimated as 286 seconds (or 11%) quicker (P = 0.0281), using regression analysis to account for reader experience, read round, and tumor type. Interobserver variance suggests moderate agreement, Cohen κ = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47, 0.81 (with ML), and Cohen κ = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47, 0.81 (without ML). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a significant difference in per-patient sensitivity and specificity for detecting metastases or the primary tumor using concurrent ML compared with standard WB-MRI. Radiology read-times with or without ML support fell for round 2 reads compared with round 1, suggesting that readers familiarized themselves with the study reading method. During the second reading round, there was a significant reduction in reading time when using ML support

Understanding how perceptions of tobacco constituents and the FDA relate to effective and credible tobacco risk messaging: A national phone survey of U.S. adults, 2014–2015

As reported in the original paper [1], the Center for Regulatory Research on Tobacco Communication conducted a telephone survey in 2014–2015 with a national sample of adults ages 18 and older living in the United States (N = 5014). Poverty level was determined using the household size and income reported by the respondents and applying the federal poverty numbers available from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2014. A coding error was made during the data recoding process such that 2.7% of respondents (n = 129) were incorrectly classified as living above the poverty line. Below are updated Tables 1, 2 and 4 presenting both the original and corrected estimates. No substantive conclusions reported in the paper were affected by this correction

A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation

Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated-Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman´s rule of thumb, and least squares cross-validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half-sample cross-validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ((Formula presented.)) to quantify the information content of each data set. We found that AKDE 95% area estimates were larger than conventional IID-based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross-validated locations included in the hold-out sets by AKDE 95% (or 50%) estimates was 95.3% (or 50.1%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing (Formula presented.). To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal´s movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small (Formula presented.). While 72% of the 369 empirical data sets had >1,000 total observations, only 4% had an (Formula presented.) >1,000, where 30% had an (Formula presented.) <30. In this frequently encountered scenario of small (Formula presented.), AKDE was the only estimator capable of producing an accurate home range estimate on autocorrelated data.Fil: Noonan, Michael J.. National Zoological Park; Estados Unidos. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Tucker, Marlee A.. Senckenberg Gesellschaft Für Naturforschung; . Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Fleming, Christen H.. University of Maryland; Estados Unidos. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Akre, Thomas S.. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Alberts, Susan C.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Ali, Abdullahi H.. Hirola Conservation Programme. Garissa; KeniaFil: Altmann, Jeanne. University of Princeton; Estados UnidosFil: Antunes, Pamela Castro. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Belant, Jerrold L.. State University of New York; Estados UnidosFil: Beyer, Dean. Universitat Phillips; AlemaniaFil: Blaum, Niels. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Böhning Gaese, Katrin. Senckenberg Gesellschaft Für Naturforschung; Alemania. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Cullen Jr., Laury. Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas; BrasilFil: de Paula, Rogerio Cunha. National Research Center For Carnivores Conservation; BrasilFil: Dekker, Jasja. Jasja Dekker Dierecologie; Países BajosFil: Drescher Lehman, Jonathan. George Mason University; Estados Unidos. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Farwig, Nina. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Fichtel, Claudia. German Primate Center; AlemaniaFil: Fischer, Christina. Universitat Technical Zu Munich; AlemaniaFil: Ford, Adam T.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Goheen, Jacob R.. University of Wyoming; Estados UnidosFil: Janssen, René. Bionet Natuuronderzoek; Países BajosFil: Jeltsch, Florian. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Kauffman, Matthew. University Of Wyoming; Estados UnidosFil: Kappeler, Peter M.. German Primate Center; AlemaniaFil: Koch, Flávia. German Primate Center; AlemaniaFil: LaPoint, Scott. Max Planck Institute für Ornithologie; Alemania. Columbia University; Estados UnidosFil: Markham, A. Catherine. Stony Brook University; Estados UnidosFil: Medici, Emilia Patricia. Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas (IPE) ; BrasilFil: Morato, Ronaldo G.. Institute For Conservation of The Neotropical Carnivores; Brasil. National Research Center For Carnivores Conservation; BrasilFil: Nathan, Ran. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; IsraelFil: Oliveira Santos, Luiz Gustavo R.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Olson, Kirk A.. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unidos. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Patterson, Bruce. Field Museum of National History; Estados UnidosFil: Paviolo, Agustin Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú | Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste; ArgentinaFil: Ramalho, Emiliano Esterci. Institute For Conservation of The Neotropical Carnivores; Brasil. Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel Mamirauá; BrasilFil: Rösner, Sascha. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Schabo, Dana G.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Selva, Nuria. Institute of Nature Conservation of The Polish Academy of Sciences; PoloniaFil: Sergiel, Agnieszka. Institute of Nature Conservation of The Polish Academy of Sciences; PoloniaFil: Xavier da Silva, Marina. Parque Nacional do Iguaçu; BrasilFil: Spiegel, Orr. Universitat Tel Aviv; IsraelFil: Thompson, Peter. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Ullmann, Wiebke. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Ziḝba, Filip. Tatra National Park; PoloniaFil: Zwijacz Kozica, Tomasz. Tatra National Park; PoloniaFil: Fagan, William F.. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Mueller, Thomas. Senckenberg Gesellschaft Für Naturforschung; . Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Calabrese, Justin M.. National Zoological Park; Estados Unidos. University of Maryland; Estados Unido

Diurnal timing of nonmigratory movement by birds: the importance of foraging spatial scales

Timing of activity can reveal an organism's efforts to optimize foraging either by minimizing energy loss through passive movement or by maximizing energetic gain through foraging. Here, we assess whether signals of either of these strategies are detectable in the timing of activity of daily, local movements by birds. We compare the similarities of timing of movement activity among species using six temporal variables: start of activity relative to sunrise, end of activity relative to sunset, relative speed at midday, number of movement bouts, bout duration and proportion of active daytime hours. We test for the influence of flight mode and foraging habitat on the timing of movement activity across avian guilds. We used 64 570 days of GPS movement data collected between 2002 and 2019 for local (non‐migratory) movements of 991 birds from 49 species, representing 14 orders. Dissimilarity among daily activity patterns was best explained by flight mode. Terrestrial soaring birds began activity later and stopped activity earlier than pelagic soaring or flapping birds. Broad‐scale foraging habitat explained less of the clustering patterns because of divergent timing of active periods of pelagic surface and diving foragers. Among pelagic birds, surface foragers were active throughout all 24 hrs of the day while diving foragers matched their active hours more closely to daylight hours. Pelagic surface foragers also had the greatest daily foraging distances, which was consistent with their daytime activity patterns. This study demonstrates that flight mode and foraging habitat influence temporal patterns of daily movement activity of birds.We thank the Nature Conservancy, the Bailey Wildlife Foundation, the Bluestone Foundation, the Ocean View Foundation, Biodiversity Research Institute, the Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund, the Davis Conservation Foundation and The U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐EE0005362), and the Darwin Initiative (19-026), EDP S.A. ‘Fundação para a Biodiversidade’ and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) (DL57/2019/CP 1440/CT 0021), Enterprise St Helena (ESH), Friends of National Zoo Conservation Research Grant Program and Conservation Nation, ConocoPhillips Global Signature Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Cellular Tracking Technologies and Hawk Mountain Sanctuary for providing funding and in-kind support for the GPS data used in our analyses

Moving in the anthropocene: global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements

Animal movement is fundamental for ecosystem functioning and species survival, yet the effects of the anthropogenic footprint on animal movements have not been estimated across species. Using a unique GPS-tracking database of 803 individuals across 57 species, we found that movements of mammals in areas with a comparatively high human footprint were on average one-half to one-third the extent of their movements in areas with a low human footprint. We attribute this reduction to behavioral changes of individual animals and to the exclusion of species with long-range movements from areas with higher human impact. Global loss of vagility alters a key ecological trait of animals that affects not only population persistence but also ecosystem processes such as predator-prey interactions, nutrient cycling, and disease transmission

A Multilaboratory Comparison of Calibration Accuracy and the Performance of External References in Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) is a first principles based method to determine absolute sedimentation coefficients and buoyant molar masses of macromolecules and their complexes, reporting on their size and shape in free solution. The purpose of this multi-laboratory study was to establish the precision and accuracy of basic data dimensions in AUC and validate previously proposed calibration techniques. Three kits of AUC cell assemblies containing radial and temperature calibration tools and a bovine serum albumin (BSA) reference sample were shared among 67 laboratories, generating 129 comprehensive data sets. These allowed for an assessment of many parameters of instrument performance, including accuracy of the reported scan time after the start of centrifugation, the accuracy of the temperature calibration, and the accuracy of the radial magnification. The range of sedimentation coefficients obtained for BSA monomer in different instruments and using different optical systems was from 3.655 S to 4.949 S, with a mean and standard deviation of (4.304 ± 0.188) S (4.4%). After the combined application of correction factors derived from the external calibration references for elapsed time, scan velocity, temperature, and radial magnification, the range of s-values was reduced 7-fold with a mean of 4.325 S and a 6-fold reduced standard deviation of ± 0.030 S (0.7%). In addition, the large data set provided an opportunity to determine the instrument-to-instrument variation of the absolute radial positions reported in the scan files, the precision of photometric or refractometric signal magnitudes, and the precision of the calculated apparent molar mass of BSA monomer and the fraction of BSA dimers. These results highlight the necessity and effectiveness of independent calibration of basic AUC data dimensions for reliable quantitative studies

A multilaboratory comparison of calibration accuracy and the performance of external references in analytical ultracentrifugation.

Analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) is a first principles based method to determine absolute sedimentation coefficients and buoyant molar masses of macromolecules and their complexes, reporting on their size and shape in free solution. The purpose of this multi-laboratory study was to establish the precision and accuracy of basic data dimensions in AUC and validate previously proposed calibration techniques. Three kits of AUC cell assemblies containing radial and temperature calibration tools and a bovine serum albumin (BSA) reference sample were shared among 67 laboratories, generating 129 comprehensive data sets. These allowed for an assessment of many parameters of instrument performance, including accuracy of the reported scan time after the start of centrifugation, the accuracy of the temperature calibration, and the accuracy of the radial magnification. The range of sedimentation coefficients obtained for BSA monomer in different instruments and using different optical systems was from 3.655 S to 4.949 S, with a mean and standard deviation of (4.304 ± 0.188) S (4.4%). After the combined application of correction factors derived from the external calibration references for elapsed time, scan velocity, temperature, and radial magnification, the range of s-values was reduced 7-fold with a mean of 4.325 S and a 6-fold reduced standard deviation of ± 0.030 S (0.7%). In addition, the large data set provided an opportunity to determine the instrument-to-instrument variation of the absolute radial positions reported in the scan files, the precision of photometric or refractometric signal magnitudes, and the precision of the calculated apparent molar mass of BSA monomer and the fraction of BSA dimers. These results highlight the necessity and effectiveness of independent calibration of basic AUC data dimensions for reliable quantitative studies