O3‐05‐02: Genetic Risk, Lifestyle And Dementia

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152906/1/alzjjalz2019064649.pd

The contribution of multiple long-term conditions to widening inequalities in disability-free life expectancy over two decades: Longitudinal analysis of two cohorts using the Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies.

BACKGROUND: : Disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) inequalities by socioeconomic deprivation are widening, alongside rising prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). We use longitudinal data to assess whether MLTCs contribute to the widening DFLE inequalities by socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS: : The Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS I and II) are large population-based studies of those ≥65 years, conducted in three areas in England. Baseline occurred in 1991 (CFAS I, n=7635) and 2011 (CFAS II, n=7762) with two-year follow-up. We defined disability as difficulty in activities of daily living, MLTCs as the presence of at least two of nine health conditions, and socioeconomic deprivation by area-level deprivation tertiles. DFLE and transitions between disability states and death were estimated from multistate models. FINDINGS: : For people with MLTCs, inequalities in DFLE at age 65 between the most and least affluent widened to around 2.5 years (men:2.4 years, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.4-4.4; women:2.6 years, 95%CI 0.7-4.5) by 2011. Incident disability reduced for the most affluent women (Relative Risk Ratio (RRR):0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.9), and mortality with disability reduced for least affluent men (RRR:0.6, 95%CI 0.5-0.8). MLTCs prevalence increased only for least affluent men (1991: 58.8%, 2011: 66.9%) and women (1991: 60.9%, 2011: 69.1%). However, DFLE inequalities were as large in people without MLTCs (men:2.4 years, 95%CI 0.3-4.5; women:3.1 years, 95% CI 0.8-5.4). INTERPRETATION: : Widening DFLE inequalities were not solely due to MLTCs. Reduced disability incidence with MLTCs is possible but was only achieved in the most affluent

Artificial intelligence for dementia drug discovery and trials optimization

Drug discovery and clinical trial design for dementia have historically been challenging. In part these challenges have arisen from patient heterogeneity, length of disease course, and the tractability of a target for the brain. Applying big data analytics and machine learning tools for drug discovery and utilizing them to inform successful clinical trial design has the potential to accelerate progress. Opportunities arise at multiple stages in the therapy pipeline and the growing availability of large medical data sets opens possibilities for big data analyses to answer key questions in clinical and therapeutic challenges. However, before this goal is reached, several challenges need to be overcome and only a multi‐disciplinary approach can promote data‐driven decision‐making to its full potential. Herein we review the current state of machine learning applications to clinical trial design and drug discovery, while presenting opportunities and recommendations that can break down the barriers to implementation

Artificial intelligence for dementia research methods optimization

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) approaches are increasingly being used in dementia research. However, several methodological challenges exist that may limit the insights we can obtain from high-dimensional data and our ability to translate these findings into improved patient outcomes. To improve reproducibility and replicability, researchers should make their well-documented code and modeling pipelines openly available. Data should also be shared where appropriate. To enhance the acceptability of models and AI-enabled systems to users, researchers should prioritize interpretable methods that provide insights into how decisions are generated. Models should be developed using multiple, diverse datasets to improve robustness, generalizability, and reduce potentially harmful bias. To improve clarity and reproducibility, researchers should adhere to reporting guidelines that are co-produced with multiple stakeholders. If these methodological challenges are overcome, AI and ML hold enormous promise for changing the landscape of dementia research and care. HIGHLIGHTS: Machine learning (ML) can improve diagnosis, prevention, and management of dementia. Inadequate reporting of ML procedures affects reproduction/replication of results. ML models built on unrepresentative datasets do not generalize to new datasets. Obligatory metrics for certain model structures and use cases have not been defined. Interpretability and trust in ML predictions are barriers to clinical translation

Artificial intelligence for dementia prevention

INTRODUCTION: A wide range of modifiable risk factors for dementia have been identified. Considerable debate remains about these risk factors, possible interactions between them or with genetic risk, and causality, and how they can help in clinical trial recruitment and drug development. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) may refine understanding.// METHODS: ML approaches are being developed in dementia prevention. We discuss exemplar uses and evaluate the current applications and limitations in the dementia prevention field.// RESULTS: Risk-profiling tools may help identify high-risk populations for clinical trials; however, their performance needs improvement. New risk-profiling and trial-recruitment tools underpinned by ML models may be effective in reducing costs and improving future trials. ML can inform drug-repurposing efforts and prioritization of disease-modifying therapeutics.// DISCUSSION: ML is not yet widely used but has considerable potential to enhance precision in dementia prevention

Artificial intelligence for neurodegenerative experimental models

INTRODUCTION: Experimental models are essential tools in neurodegenerative disease research. However, the translation of insights and drugs discovered in model systems has proven immensely challenging, marred by high failure rates in human clinical trials. METHODS: Here we review the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in experimental medicine for dementia research. RESULTS: Considering the specific challenges of reproducibility and translation between other species or model systems and human biology in preclinical dementia research, we highlight best practices and resources that can be leveraged to quantify and evaluate translatability. We then evaluate how AI and ML approaches could be applied to enhance both cross-model reproducibility and translation to human biology, while sustaining biological interpretability. DISCUSSION: AI and ML approaches in experimental medicine remain in their infancy. However, they have great potential to strengthen preclinical research and translation if based upon adequate, robust, and reproducible experimental data. HIGHLIGHTS: There are increasing applications of AI in experimental medicine. We identified issues in reproducibility, cross-species translation, and data curation in the field. Our review highlights data resources and AI approaches as solutions. Multi-omics analysis with AI offers exciting future possibilities in drug discovery

Artificial intelligence for dementia genetics and omics

Genetics and omics studies of Alzheimer's disease and other dementia subtypes enhance our understanding of underlying mechanisms and pathways that can be targeted. We identified key remaining challenges: First, can we enhance genetic studies to address missing heritability? Can we identify reproducible omics signatures that differentiate between dementia subtypes? Can high-dimensional omics data identify improved biomarkers? How can genetics inform our understanding of causal status of dementia risk factors? And which biological processes are altered by dementia-related genetic variation? Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning approaches give us powerful new tools in helping us to tackle these challenges, and we review possible solutions and examples of best practice. However, their limitations also need to be considered, as well as the need for coordinated multidisciplinary research and diverse deeply phenotyped cohorts. Ultimately AI approaches improve our ability to interrogate genetics and omics data for precision dementia medicine

Artificial intelligence for diagnostic and prognostic neuroimaging in dementia: a systematic review

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) and neuroimaging offer new opportunities for diagnosis and prognosis of dementia. Methods: We systematically reviewed studies reporting AI for neuroimaging in diagnosis and/or prognosis of cognitive neurodegenerative diseases. Results: A total of 255 studies were identified. Most studies relied on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset. Algorithmic classifiers were the most commonly used AI method (48%) and discriminative models performed best for differentiating Alzheimer's disease from controls. The accuracy of algorithms varied with the patient cohort, imaging modalities, and stratifiers used. Few studies performed validation in an independent cohort. Discussion: The literature has several methodological limitations including lack of sufficient algorithm development descriptions and standard definitions. We make recommendations to improve model validation including addressing key clinical questions, providing sufficient description of AI methods and validating findings in independent datasets. Collaborative approaches between experts in AI and medicine will help achieve the promising potential of AI tools in practice. Highlights: There has been a rapid expansion in the use of machine learning for diagnosis and prognosis in neurodegenerative disease Most studies (71%) relied on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset with no other individual dataset used more than five times There has been a recent rise in the use of more complex discriminative models (e.g., neural networks) that performed better than other classifiers for classification of AD vs healthy controls We make recommendations to address methodological considerations, addressing key clinical questions, and validation We also make recommendations for the field more broadly to standardize outcome measures, address gaps in the literature, and monitor sources of bias