Linguistic markers predict onset of Alzheimer's disease

Elif Eyigoz, Sachin Mathur, Mar Santamaria, Guillermo Cecchi, Melissa Naylor, Elif Eyigoz, Sachin Mathur, Mar Santamaria, Guillermo Cecchi, Melissa Naylor

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to use classification methods to predict future onset of Alzheimer's disease in cognitively normal subjects through automated linguistic analysis.

Methods: To study linguistic performance as an early biomarker of AD, we performed predictive modeling of future diagnosis of AD from a cognitively normal baseline of Framingham Heart Study participants. The linguistic variables were derived from written responses to the cookie-theft picture-description task. We compared the predictive performance of linguistic variables with clinical and neuropsychological variables. The study included 703 samples from 270 participants out of which a dataset consisting of a single sample from 80 participants was held out for testing. Half of the participants in the test set developed AD symptoms before 85 years old, while the other half did not. All samples in the test set were collected during the cognitively normal period (before MCI). The mean time to diagnosis of mild AD was 7.59 years.

Findings: Significant predictive power was obtained, with AUC of 0.74 and accuracy of 0.70 when using linguistic variables. The linguistic variables most relevant for predicting onset of AD have been identified in the literature as associated with cognitive decline in dementia.

Interpretation: The results suggest that language performance in naturalistic probes expose subtle early signs of progression to AD in advance of clinical diagnosis of impairment.

Funding: Pfizer, Inc. provided funding to obtain data from the Framingham Heart Study Consortium, and to support the involvement of IBM Research in the initial phase of the study. The data used in this study was supported by Framingham Heart Study's National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute contract (N01-HC-25195), and by grants from the National Institute on Aging grants (R01-AG016495, R01-AG008122) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01-NS017950).

Conflict of interest statement

Elif Eyigoz and Guillermo Cecchi has worked as salaried employees of IBM Corp. for the full duration of this project. Melissa Naylor was a salaried employee of Pfizer, Inc. when assigned to this project, until October 2018, and since then has been a salaried employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Sachin Mathur and Mar Santamaria have worked as salaried employees of Pfizer, Inc. for the full duration of this project. Guillermo Cecchi declares that IBM holds a patent (US-9508360-B2) for the extraction of one of the features used in the linguistic model.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The diagram depicts method for selection of cases vs controls and predictive model setting. Participants who developed MCI due to AD on or before age 85 were selected as cases, and participants remained dementia-free until age 85 were selected as controls. The three predictive models included only non-linguistic variables, only linguistic variables, or both (see Table 3), collected when participants were considered cognitively normal, and were trained to predict conversion status by age 85 vs. later or no conversion.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Method of selection of participants for creating a test data set and a training data set from the FHS data. The available data consisted of 3113 samples from 1254 participants, 486 of which have been reviewed by a panel for dementia status. The participants who were reviewed by the panel were candidates for creating a test data set. Their samples were eliminated according to the inclusion criteria, and then the qualifying samples were passed through age, education and gender matching. This resulted in a test set of 80 samples. The participants who were not reviewed by the dementia review panel were used for creating a larger weakly-labeled data set, only for the purpose of machine learning training. Validation of predictive modeling consisted of the hold-out method (train on weak-labels, test on ground-truth), and cross-validation (train on ground-truth, test on ground-truth). .
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
CTT examples from FHS, including an unimpaired sample (a), an impaired sample showing telegraphic speech and lack of punctuation (b), and an even more impaired sample showing in addition significant misspellings and minimal grammatic complexity, e.g. lack of subjects (c).
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The ROC curve of the test-set with the hold-out method for the linguistic-based model (see Table 3). This result was obtained by a Logistic Regression classifier.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
The results of the non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) analysis of the linguistic and the NP variables on longitudinal data. This plot demonstrates that the factorization of the variables without using time information temporal trend as well as a differentiation between cases and controls, which starts several years before cognitive impairment. The controls’ samples are projected onto the factorization learned from the cases’ samples and averaged over six-month intervals. Controls are shown in blue, and cases in red. The horizontal axis is years to/from cognitive impairment onset, where 0 stands for the date of cognitive impairment. .

References

    1. Roth C.R., Helm-Estabrooks N. Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology. Springer International Publishing; 2018. Boston naming test; pp. 611–615.
    1. Snowdon D.A. Linguistic ability in early life and cognitive function and Alzheimer's disease in late life. Findings from the Nun study. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc. 1996;275:528–532.
    1. Dawber T.R., Meadors G.F., Moore Jr F.E. Epidemiological approaches to heart disease: the Framingham study. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1951;41:279–286.
    1. Farmer M.E., White L.R., Kittner S.J., Kaplan E., Moes E., McNamara P. Neuropsychological test performance in Framingham: a descriptive study. Psychol Rep. 1987
    1. Seshadri S., Wolf P.A., Beiser A., Au R., McNulty K., White R. Lifetime risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease: the impact of mortality on risk estimates in the Framingham study. Neurology. 1997;49:1498–1504.
    1. Au R., Seshadri S., Wolf P.A., Elias M.F., Elias P.K., Sullivan L. New norms for a new generation: cognitive performance in the Framingham offspring cohort. Exp Aging Res. 2004;30:333–358.
    1. Goodglass H., Kaplan E. Lea & Febiger; 1972. The assessment of aphasia and related disorders.
    1. Cummings L. Describing the cookie theft picture: sources of breakdown in Alzheimer's dementia. Pragm Soc. 2019;10:153–176.
    1. Kannel W.B., Feinleib M., McNamara P.M., Garrison R.J., Castelli W.P. An investigation of coronary heart disease in families: the Framingham offspring Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1979;110:281–290.
    1. Folstein M.F., Folstein S.E., McHugh P.R. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–198.
    1. Seshadri S., Wolf P., Beiser A., Au R., McNulty K., White R. Lifetime risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease: the impact of mortality on risk estimates in the Framingham Study. Neurology. 1997;49:1498–1504.
    1. Seshadri S., Beiser A., Au R., Wolf P.A., Evans D.A., Wilson R.S. Operationalizing diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease and other age-related cognitive impairment—part 2. Alzheimer's Dement. 2011;7:35–52.
    1. Au R., Seshadri S., Knox K., Beiser A., Himali J.J., Cabral H.J. The Framingham brain donation program: neuropathology along the cognitive continuum. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2012;9:673–686.
    1. Association A.P., others . American Psychiatric Pub; 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®)
    1. McKhann G., Drachman D., Folstein M., Katzman R., Price D., Stadlan E.M. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of department of health and human services task force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 1984;34 939–939.
    1. Bachman D.L., Wolf P.A., Linn R.T., Knoefel J.E., Cobb J.L., Belanger A.J. Incidence of dementia and probable Alzheimer's disease in a general population the Framingham study. Neurology. 1993;43 515–515.
    1. Morris J.C., Storandt M., Miller J.P., McKeel D.W., Price J.L., Rubin E.H. Mild cognitive impairment represents early-stage Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol. 2001:58.
    1. Morris J.C. Mild cognitive impairment is early-stage Alzheimer disease: time to revise diagnostic criteria. Arch Neurol. 2006;63:15–16.
    1. Stephan B., Hunter S., Harris D., Llewellyn D., Siervo M., Matthews F. The neuropathological profile of mild cognitive impairment (MCI): a systematic review. Mol Psychiatry. 2012;17:1056.
    1. Silverman J.M., Smith C.J., Marin D.B., Mohs R.C., Propper C.B. Familial patterns of risk in very late-onset Alzheimer disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60:190–197.
    1. Silverman J.M., Li G., Zaccario M.L., Smith C.J., Schmeidler J., Mohs R.C. Patterns of risk in first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer's disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51:577–586.
    1. Silverman J.M., Ciresi G., Smith C.J., Marin D.B., Schnaider-Beeri M. Variability of familial risk of Alzheimer disease across the late life span. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:565–573.
    1. Nasreddine Z.S., Phillips N.A., Bédirian V., Charbonneau S., Whitehead V., Collin I. The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:695–699.
    1. Goodglass H. Academic Press; 1993. Understanding aphasia.
    1. Thompson C.K. Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders: fifth edition. Wolters Kluwer Health Adis (ESP); 2012. Treatment of syntactic and morphologic deficits in agrammatic aphasia: treatment of underlying forms; pp. 735–755.
    1. Mason S.J., Graham N.E. Areas beneath the relative operating characteristics (ROC) and relative operating levels (ROL) curves: statistical significance and interpretation. Quart J R Meteorol Soc: J Atmos Sci Appl Meteorol Phys Oceanogr. 2002;128:2145–2166.
    1. Stern Y. Influence of education and occupation on the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease. JAMA. 1994;271:1004–1010.
    1. Katzman R., Terry R., DeTeresa R., Brown T., Davies P., Fuld P. Clinical, pathological, and neurochemical changes in dementia: a subgroup with preserved mental status and numerous neocortical plaques. Ann Neurol: Off J Am Neurol Assoc Child Neurol Soc. 1988;23:138–144.
    1. Andersen K., Launer L.J., Dewey M.E., Letenneur L., Ott A., Copeland J.R.M. Gender differences in the incidence of AD and vascular dementia: the EURODEM studies. Neurology. 1999;53 1992–1992.
    1. Viña J., Lloret A. Why women have more Alzheimer's disease than men: gender and mitochondrial toxicity of amyloid-β peptide. J Alzheimer's Dis. 2010;20:S527–S533.
    1. Mielke M., Vemuri P., Rocca W. Clinical epidemiology of Alzheimer's disease: assessing sex and gender differences. Clin Epidemiol. 2014:37.
    1. Barton S., Findlay D., Blake R.A. The management of inappropriate vocalisation in dementia: a hierarchical approach. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005;20:1180–1186.
    1. de Lira J.O., Ortiz K.Z., Campanha A.C., Bertolucci P.H.F., Minett T.S.C. Microlinguistic aspects of the oral narrative in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Int Psychogeriatr. 2010;23:404–412.
    1. Lambert J., Eustache F., Viader F., Dary M., Rioux P., Lechevalier B. Agraphia in Alzheimer’s disease: an independent lexical impairment. Brain Lang. 1996;53:222–233.
    1. Kempler D., Almor A., Tyler L.K., Andersen E.S., MacDonald M.C. Sentence comprehension deficits in Alzheimer’s disease: a comparison of off-line vs. on-line sentence processing. Brain Lang. 1998;64:297–316.
    1. Lyons K., Kemper S., Labarge E., Ferraro F.R., Balota D., Storandt M. Oral language and Alzheimer’s disease: a reduction in syntactic complexity. Aging, Neuropsychol Cogn. 1994;1:271–281.
    1. Martin A., Fedio P. Word production and comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: the breakdown of semantic knowledge. Brain Lang. 1983;19:124–141.
    1. Appell J., Kertesz A., Fisman M. A study of language functioning in Alzheimer patients. Brain Lang. 1982;17:73–91.
    1. Bucks R.S., Singh S., Cuerden J.M., Wilcock G.K. Analysis of spontaneous, conversational speech in dementia of Alzheimer type: evaluation of an objective technique for analysing lexical performance. Aphasiology. 2000;14:71–91.
    1. Sperling R.A., Aisen P.S., Beckett L.A., Bennett D.A., Craft S., Fagan A.M. Toward defining the preclinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the national institute on aging-Alzheimer’s association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer\Textquotesingles Dement. 2011;7:280–292.
    1. Cui Y., Liu B., Luo S., Zhen X., Fan M., Liu T. Identification of conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease using multivariate predictors. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e21896.
    1. Pereira T., Lemos L., Cardoso S., Silva D., Rodrigues A., Santana I. Predicting progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia using neuropsychological data: a supervised learning approach using time windows. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017:17.
    1. Preische O., Schultz S., Apel A., Kuhle J., Kaeser S., Barro C. Dominantly inherited Alzheimer network. serum neurofilament dynamics predicts neurodegeneration and clinical progression in presymptomatic Alzheimer's disease. Nat Med. 2019;25:277–283.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する