Arxiv:2009.07139V1 [Cs.LG] 15 Sep 2020 and in Selecting Homogeneous Group of Presymptomatic Subjects At-Risk of Developing Symptoms for Clinical Trials

Analyzing the eﬀect of APOE on Alzheimer’s disease progression using an event-based model for stratiﬁed populations

Vikram Venkatraghavana,∗, Stefan Kleina, Lana Fanic, Leontine S. Hama, Henri Vroomana, M. Kamran Ikramc,d, Wiro J. Niessena,b, Esther E. Brona, for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative1

aBiomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands bQuantitative Imaging Group, Dept. of Imaging Physics, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands cDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands dDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and is phenotypically heterogeneous. APOE is a triallelic gene which correlates with phenotypic heterogeneity in AD. In this work, we determined the effect of APOE alleles on the disease progression timeline of AD using a discriminative event-based model (DEBM). Since DEBM is a data-driven model, stratification into smaller disease subgroups would lead to more inaccurate models as compared to fitting the model on the entire dataset. Hence our secondary aim is to propose and evaluate novel approaches in which we split the different steps of DEBM into group-aspecific and group-specific parts, where the entire dataset is used to train the group-aspecific parts and only the data from a specific group is used to train the group-specific parts of the DEBM. We performed simulation experiments to benchmark the accuracy of the proposed approaches and to select the optimal approach. Subsequently, the chosen approach was applied to the baseline data of 417 cognitively normal, 235 mild cognitively impaired who convert to AD within 3 years, and 342 AD patients from the Alzheimers Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset to gain new insights into the effect of APOE carriership on the disease progression timeline of AD. In the risk group (with APOE ε3 − ε4 or ε4 − ε4), the model predicted with high confidence that CSF Amyloid β and the cognitive score of Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) are early biomarkers. Hippocampus was the earliest volumetric biomarker to become abnormal, with the molecular layer of the hippocampus becoming abnormal even before the CSF Phosphorylated Tau (PTAU) biomarker. In the neutral group (with APOE ε3−ε3) the model predicted a similar ordering among CSF biomarkers. However, the volume of the fusiform gyrus was identified as one of the earliest volumetric biomarker along with the hippocampus subparts of Fissure and Parasubiculum. While the findings in the risk and neutral groups fit the amyloid cascade hypothesis, the finding in the protective group (with APOE ε2 − ε2 or ε2 − ε3) did not. The model predicted, with relatively low confidence, CSF Neurogranin as one of the earliest biomarkers along with cognitive score of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Amyloid β was found to become abnormal after PTAU. The presented models could aid understanding of the disease, arXiv:2009.07139v1 [cs.LG] 15 Sep 2020 and in selecting homogeneous group of presymptomatic subjects at-risk of developing symptoms for clinical trials. Keywords: Disease Progression Modeling, Event-Based Model, Alzheimer’s Disease, APOE

∗Corresponding author Email address: [email protected] tained from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initia- (Vikram Venkatraghavan) tive (ADNI) database (adni.loni.usc.edu). As such, the 1Data used in preparation of this article were ob- investigators within the ADNI contributed to the design

Preprint submitted to NeuroImage September 16, 2020 1. Introduction disease progression. Event-based models (EBMs) are a class of such interpretable disease progression Dementia affects roughly 5% of the world’s el- models that estimate the timeline of neuropatho- derly population of whom 60 − 70% are affected logic change during AD progression using cross- by Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), which is the most sectional data (Fonteijn et al., 2012; Venkatragha- common form of dementia (World Health Organiza- van et al., 2019a). tion, 2017). There are several neurobiological sub- Our primary aim is to use the discriminative types of AD (Ferreira et al., 2020) and each sub- event-based model (DEBM), which was shown type potentially needs a different strategy to pre- to be more accurate than previously proposed vent or slow the progression of AD. Understand- EBMs (Venkatraghavan et al., 2019a), to under- ing the pathophysiological processes in AD is thus stand the effect of different APOE alleles on the crucial for selecting novel preventive or therapeutic disease timeline of AD. To shed light on different as- targets for clinical trials of disease modifying treat- pects of neurodegeneration and identify the earliest ments, identifying target groups for such trials and brain regions affected, we included commonly stud- tracking the disease progression in patients. ied cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, cognitive While several studies have looked into the patho- scores, and volumetric biomarkers from neuroimag- physiology of AD (Jack Jr. et al., 2013; Bloom, ing including those of hippocampus subfields. Hip- 2014; Weigand et al., 2019), it is still not completely pocampus subfields were included in our model understood. Although it has been observed that because while Hippocampus neuronal dysfunction AD is phenotypically heterogeneous (Murray et al., is quite commonly studied to be affected in AD, 2011; Au et al., 2015; Patterson, 2018) with po- it is not a homogenous structure, and subfields tentially different pathways for disease progression, could be affected differentially due to APOE carri- these pathways remain unclear. There is hence a ership (Mueller and Weiner, 2009). need to understand the phenotypic heterogeneity in The default approach for estimating the disease AD while leveraging neuroimaging, fluid and cogni- progression timeline would be to stratify the pop- tive biomarkers. ulation based on their APOE ε2 − 4 carrier status APOE is a triallelic gene in which the ε2 allele and independently train the DEBM model on the reduces the risk of AD (van der Lee et al., 2018), the stratified populations (Young et al., 2014). How- ε3 allele acts as a reference allele and the ε4 allele is ever, since DEBM is a data-driven model, strati- a major genetic risk factor of AD (Saunders et al., fication into smaller groups would lead to less ac- 1993; Kim et al., 2009; Genin et al., 2011). APOE curate models than those obtained by the original has been shown to correlate with phenotypic het- method on the entire dataset. Hence our secondary erogeneity in AD (Weintraub et al., 2019). Hence aim is to propose and evaluate a novel approach we hypothesize that the pathophysiology of AD can in which we split the different steps of DEBM into be better understood when considering the effect of group-aspecific and group-specific parts, where the APOE carriership on biomarker changes. entire dataset is used to train the group-aspecific In the context of data-driven methods for un- parts and only the data from a specific group is derstanding AD pathophysiology, disease progres- used to train the group-specific parts of the DEBM. sion models have been used to study the trajec- We present two different variations of this approach tories of individual biomarkers (Jedynak et al., and we hypothesize that the optimal split of the 2012; Schiratti et al., 2015; Lorenzi et al., 2017) DEBM steps into the group-aspecific and group- as well as their progression with respect to each specific parts would result in better accuracy of the other (Fonteijn et al., 2012; Venkatraghavan et al., estimated disease progression timeline. Since the 2017; Young et al., 2014; Huang and Alexander, ground-truth timelines are unknown in a clinical 2012). Unlike typical machine learning approaches, setting, we evaluate the accuracy of the proposed these models are interpretable by design and pro- variations using simulation experiments and we se- vide insight for understanding the mechanisms of lect the optimal method for the analysis on the effect of APOE on the AD progression timeline on and implementation of ADNI and/or provided data but patient data. did not participate in analysis or writing of this report. To summarize, our contributions in this paper in- A complete listing of ADNI investigators can be found at: http://adni.loni.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/how_ clude proposing and evaluating a novel approach for to_apply/ADNI_Acknowledgement_List.pdf using DEBM in stratified populations and estimat- 2 ing a comprehensive timeline of AD progression, in becoming abnormal and ¬Ei denotes the correspon- terms of biomarker changes, in the presence of dif- nding biomarer being normal. The aforementioned ferent APOE alleles. PDFs can be expressed as:

p(x·,i|¬Ei) = N (µi,¬E; σi,¬E) (1) 2. Methods

An introduction to the DEBM model (Venka- p(x·,i|Ei) = N (µi,E; σi,E) (2) traghavan et al., 2019a) is provided in Section 2.1. Where, N (µ, σ) is the normal distribution with In Section 2.2 we propose our novel approach for mean µ and standard deviation σ. using DEBM in stratified populations with its two For estimating these parameters robustly in the variations. presence of biomarker label noise, the normal and abnormal PDF estimates are first initialized using 2.1. Discriminative event-based modeling the mean and standard deviations after truncating In a cross-sectional dataset (X) of M subjects, the overlapping tails of the observed distributions including cognitively normal individuals (CN), sub- in CN and AD subjects. This can be observed in jects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Figure 2, where the initialization is performed only patients with AD, let Xj denote a measurement based on the non-overlapping parts of green and of biomarkers for subject j ∈ [1,M], consisting red curves, while the overlapping part is left out of scalar biomarker values xj,i for i ∈ [1,N]. x·,i to account for biomarker label noise. At this stage denotes the i-th biomarker for any unspecified j. of GMM initialization, MCI subjects are left out DEBM estimates the posterior probabilities of indi- as well, because it is unsure a priori whether their vidual biomarkers being abnormal. These posterior biomarkers are normal or abnormal. The result- probabilities are used to estimate the ordering of ing initialized PDFs are denoted as pb(x·,i|¬Ei)) and biomarker changes for each subject independently. pb(x·,i|Ei). The central ordering and disease progression time- This is followed by an alternating GMM maxi- line for the entire dataset are estimated based on mum likelihood optimization scheme until both the these subject-specific orderings. The resulting dis- Gaussian parameters as well as the mixing parame- ease progression timeline is used for assessing the ters converge. All the subjects, including MCI, are severity of disease in an individual based on his/her used for GMM optimization. After convergence, biomarker values. Figure 1 shows the different steps these Gaussians are used to represent the PDFs involved in DEBM. p(x·,i|¬Ei) and p(x·,i|Ei). The mixing parame- Step 1 - Mixture Modeling: As AD is char- ters (θi) are used as prior probabilities to convert acterized by a cascade of neuropathological changes these PDFs to posterior probabilities p(¬Ei|x·,i) that occurs over several years, presymptomatic CN and p(Ei|x·,i). Figure 2 shows an overview of this subjects can have some abnormal biomarker val- optimization scheme. ues. On the other hand, in atypical AD subjects, a Step 2 - Subject-specific Orderings: proportion of biomarkers may still have normal val- p(Ei|xj,i)∀i are used to estimate the subject- ues, especially in patients at an early disease stage. specific orderings sj. sj is established such Hence clinical labels cannot directly be propagated that: to individual biomarkers to label normal and abnormal biomarker values. We shall refer to this as biomarker label noise in the rest of the paper. In sj 3 p(Esj (1)|xj,sj (1)) > ... order to estimate the posterior probabilities of in- > p(Es (N)|xj,s (N)) (3) dividual biomarkers being abnormal, DEBM, sim- j j ilar to previously proposed EBMs Fonteijn et al. Step 3 - Central Ordering: DEBM com- (2012); Huang and Alexander (2012); Young et al. putes the central event ordering S from the subject- (2014), fits a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) to specific estimates sj. To describe the distribution construct the normal / pre-event probability den- of sj, a generalized Mallows model is used (Fligner sity function (PDF), p(x·,i|¬Ei), and abnormal / and Verducci, 1988). The central ordering is de- post-event PDF, p(x·,i|Ei). Event Ei in this nota- fined as the ordering that minimizes the sum of tion is used to denote the corresponding biomarker distances to all subject-specific orderings sj, with 3 Figure 1: Overview of the steps involved in DEBM. Input for the DEBM model is a cross-sectional dataset X with M subjects and various biomarkers (A,B,C and D) representing different aspects of neuro-degeneration. Using Gaussian mixture modeling (GMM), mixing parameters (θi) and probability density functions of normal (p(x·,i|¬Ei)) and abnormal (p(x·,i|Ei)) levels are estimated for each biomarker. This is followed by the estimation of subject-specific orderings (sj ), for each subject in the dataset. Disease progression timeline consisting of central ordering (S) and event-centers (λ) are estimated based on these subject-specific orderings. Based on the constructed disease progression timeline, patient stages (Υj ) of subjects in an independent test-set can be estimated.

conditional distribution p(i|S, Xj).

PN i=1 λ(i)p(i|S, Xj) Υj = (5) PN p(i|S, X ) Figure 2: Overview of GMM optimization in DEBM. i=1 j probabilistic Kendall’s Tau being the distance mea- 2.2. Group-specific and group-aspecific parts of sure (Venkatraghavan et al., 2019a). While S de- DEBM notes the sequence of biomarker events, the relative position of these events (event-centers) in a nor- We propose extensions of DEBM for stratified malized scale of [0, 1] is denoted by the vector λ. populations, i.e., when the dataset X can be sub- The pair {S, λ} together forms a disease progres- divided in groups g ∈ [1,G], based on, e.g., geno- sion timeline. type or phenotype of the subjects. Since DEBM Step 4 - Patient Staging: Once the disease is a data-driven model, data stratification into progression timeline is created, subjects in an inde- smaller groups would lead to more inaccurate mod- pendent test set (T ) can be placed on this timeline els (Venkatraghavan et al., 2019a). To obtain better to estimate disease severity. This is achieved by DEBM accuracies in such scenario, we propose to converting the biomarker values of the test subjects co-train DEBM for estimating disease timelines ∀g to posterior probabilities p(Ei|xj,i), ∀j ∈ T . These by splitting DEBM into group-aspecific and group- can be used to estimate disease severities in test specific parts. The group-aspecific parts of DEBM subjects by first estimating the conditional distri- are estimated using the entire dataset and group- bution p(i|S, Xj), which estimates the probability specific parts are estimated for each group indepen- that the first i events of S have occurred for a test- dently. subject and the rest are yet to occur. We first discuss the default way of independently training DEBM in the different groups and then propose two different approaches for split- i Y ting DEBM into group-aspecific and group-specific p (i|S, X ) ∝ p E |x × j S(l) j,S(l) parts. l=1 N Approach 1: Independent DEBM Y p ¬ES(l)|xj,S(l) (4) In this default approach, each group is considered l=i+1 as an independent dataset and the disease progression timeline in each group is estimated indepen- The patient stage of a test subject (Υj) is de- dently. GMM in such a scenario is illustrated in fined as the expectation of λ(i) with respect to the Figure 3a. 4 Approach 2: Coupled DEBM

( p(x |¬E ), p(x |E ) group-aspecific DEBM → ·,i i ·,i i θi,g, {Sg, λg}, group-specific (6) In this approach, we assume that the different groups share the normal and abnormal PDFs, but the ordering in which these biomarkers become (a) GMM in independent DEBM abnormal are different. The mixing parameters (θi,g) are considered as group-specific part of the DEBM algorithm because the proportion of subjects with normal and abnormal biomarker values in each group g is correlated with the position of the biomarker along the ordering Sg, which we expect to be different in each group. Hence, in our approach, we modify the alternating GMM optimization scheme to jointly optimize (b) GMM in Coupled DEBM the GMM parameters of multiple groups. First, the GMM algorithm is initialized without considering the groups, as explained in Section 2.1. Secondly, as with the default DEBM, Gaussian parameters and mixing parameters are alternately optimized. In contrast in coupled DEBM, the Gaussian parameters are estimated jointly for all groups, while mixing parameters are estimated separately for each group. This has been illustrated in Figure 3b. Once the GMM optimization has been per- (c) GMM in Co-init DEBM formed, Sg and λg are estimated in each group. Figure 3: Overview of GMM optimization strategies in the Patient staging (Υj) of the test-subjects in group different approaches for DEBM analysis in stratified popula- g are computed based on the disease progression tions. (a) The default approach in which GMM in each group is trained independently. (b) GMM in coupled DEBM, where timeline {Sg, λg}. the different groups share the Gaussian parameters, but the Approach 3: Co-init DEBM mixing parameters are estimated independently. (c) GMM in co-init DEBM in which the different groups are jointly ini-  tialized before the GMM optimization, but the optimization p(x |¬E ), p(x |E ) group-aspecific is done independently for each group. b ·,i i b ·,i i DEBM → pg(x·,i|¬Ei), pg(x·,i|Ei) group-specific  θi,g, {Sg, λg} group-specific (7) 3. Experiments In this approach, we assume that the different groups do not share the normal and abnormal PDFs, but that they are close to each other. Hence, in co-init DEBM, we relax the constraint Section 3.1 describes the experiments to evaluate on p(x·,i|¬Ei) and p(x·,i|Ei) and instead con- the proposed DEBM approaches on a stratified pop- sider the initialized values of normal and abnor- ulation. Since ground-truth orderings are unknown mal PDFs (pb(x·,i|¬Ei) and pb(x·,i|Ei)) to be group- in real clinical data, we use simulated datasets for aspecific part of DEBM. We estimate pg(x·,i|¬Ei) evaluating the methods. After evaluating the pro- and pg(x·,i|Ei) independently for each group. This posed approaches, we select the best approach for is illustrated in Figure 3c. analyzing the effect of APOE on AD progression As with the previous approach, Sg, λg and the using subjects from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neu- patient staging of the test-subjects in group g are roimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. Section 3.2 computed independently for each group. descibes the details of these experiments. 5 3.1. Simulation Experiments approaches perform in small as well as large groups. We used the framework developed by Young et al. The normal and abnormal biomarkers levels in the (2015) for simulating cross-sectional data consisting two groups were sampled from the same Gaussian of scalar biomarker values for CN, MCI and AD distribution for this experiment. We generated 50 subjects in two groups. In this framework, disease random repetitions of the simulated datasets, and progression in a subject is modeled by a series of reported mean and standard deviation of εS for biomarker changes representing the temporal cas- independent DEBM, coupled DEBM, and co-init cade of biomarker abnormality as estimated by an DEBM in groups 1 and 2. EBM. Individual biomarker trajectories are repre- Experiment 2: This experiment studied the sented by sigmoids varying from the biomarker’s performance of the proposed approaches with the normal value to its abnormal value. To account for µg,i,E parameter of the pg(x·,i|Ei) distribution be- inter-subject variability, the normal and abnormal ing different in the two groups. µ1,i,E was fixed, values for different subjects are drawn randomly and µ2,i,E was varied such that the difference from Gaussian distributions. µ2,i,E − µ1,i,E (εG) was one of {−0.2d, 0, +0.2d} The simulation dataset used in our experiments where d = µ1,i,E − µ1,i,¬E. 0 is considered the ref- are based on a set of seven biomarkers as described erence level, where the abnormal Gaussians are the in the simulation experiments of Venkatraghavan same in the two groups. µg,i,¬E were kept the same et al. (2019a). The simulated datasets were strat- in the two groups. Hence, when εG = −0.2d, the ified into two groups, with each group having its abnormal biomarker levels are closer to the normal own distinct disease progression patterns. There biomarker levels in Group 2 than in Group 1. This are two ways in which the progression of disease results in Group 2 biomarkers being weaker than in the groups can differ: 1. difference in ground- their Group 1 counterparts when εG = −0.2d and stronger when εG = +0.2d. The number of sub- truth orderings S1 and S2; 2. difference in the abnormal biomarker PDFs in the two groups i.e. jects in Group 2 was kept a constant at 900, while the subjects in Group 1 increased from 100 to 900. p1(x·,i|Ei) and p2(x·,i|Ei). Each of these differences could affect the accuracy of the proposed ap- εO between the two groups was fixed at 0.4. We proaches. Hence, we evaluated the proposed ap- again generated 50 random repetitions of the sim- proaches in the presence of each of these differences. ulated datasets, and reported mean and standard Normalized Kendall’s Tau distance between the es- deviation of εS for coupled DEBM, co-init DEBM timated ordering (S) and the ground-truth ordering and DEBM. These experiments were used to evaluate the dif- (Sgt) was used as an evaluation measure in these experiments: ferent approaches mentioned in Section 2 and select the best method for analyzing the effect of APOE alleles in AD progression. K(S,Sgt) N εS = /( 2 ) (8) where K(A, B) is the number of swaps required to 3.2. Studying the effect of APOE obtain ordering B from ordering A. We considered the baseline measurements from The normalization ensures that εS falls in the 417 CN, 235 MCI converters and 342 AD subjects in range [0, 1], with 0 as the distance when the two ADNI1, ADNIGO and ADNI2 studies2. The MCI orderings are the same, and 1 as the distance when converters are subjects who had MCI at baseline the two orderings are the reverse of each other. but converted to AD within 3 years of baseline mea- Experiment 1: The first simulation experiment surement. We excluded subjects with significant studied the effect of the difference in ordering be- memory concerns (without a diagnosis of AD or tween the two groups. The ordering in the first group (Group 1) was fixed and the ordering in the 2 second group (Group 2) was selected randomly such The ADNI was launched in 2003 as a public-private part- nership, led by Principal Investigator Michael W. Weiner, that the normalized Kendall’s Tau distance between MD. The primary goal of ADNI has been to test whether the two groups was a fixed number, say εO. εO was serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission varied from 0 to 1 in steps of 0.2. The number of tomography (PET), other biological markers, and clinical subjects in Group 2 was kept constant at 900. The and neuropsychological assessment can be combined to measure the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and number of subjects in Group 1 was varied from 100 early Alzheimers disease (AD). For up-to-date information, to 900 in steps of 200, to study how the different see www.adni-info.org. 6 Demographics Biomarker Availability Diagnosis CN MCIc AD Biomarker Protective Neutral Risk n 417 235 342 (N = 75) (N = 411) (N = 485) APOE 57/244/110 6/66/156 12/101/219 Imaging 74 408 481 2?/33/?4 ABETA 57 301 357 Sex M/F 209/208 145/90 189/153 PTAU 57 301 357 Age [yrs.] 74.8 ± 5.7 73.7 ± 7.0 75.0 ± 7.8 TAU 57 299 348 (µ ± σ) NG 21 113 131 Edu [yrs.] 16.3 ± 2.7 15.9 ± 2.7 15.2 ± 3.0 NFL 23 118 137 (µ ± σ) MMSE 75 411 485 ADAS 74 410 477

Table 1: Demographics for the used population. 2? represents the subjects with protective APOE alleles ε2, 2 and Table 2: Biomarker availability in number of subjects in the ε2, 3. 33 represents the subjects with reference APOE al- protective, neutral and risk groups. lele ε3, 3. ?4 represents the subjects with risk APOE alleles ε3, 4 and ε4, 4. Subjects with both protective and risk allele ε2, 4 were excluded from this study (n=34). Edu. is an biomarkers were: CSF concentrations of Amyloid- abbreviation used for Education. (ABETA), total Tau (TAU) and phosphorylated Tau (PTAU) proteins (Blennow and Hampel, 2003; Blennow et al., 2010), Neurogranin (Thorsell et al., MCI) and MCI non-converters in our experiments 2010) and Neurofilament light chain (Jin et al., to select a more phenotypically homogeneous group 2019; de Wolf et al., 2020). Mini mental state exam- of subjects with prevalent or incident AD. In each ination (MMSE) and Alzheimer’s Disease Assess- of the experiments, the dataset was divided into ment Scale - Cognitive (13 items) (ADAS13) were three groups (protective, neutral and risk) based used as cognitive biomarkers. The availability of on the subject’s APOE carriership. The protective these multimodal biomarkers in the ADNI database group consisted of subjects with APOE ε2, 2 and is summarized in Table 2. ε2, 3 (van der Lee et al., 2018). The neutral group For the 12 selected biomarkers, we estimated consisted of subjects with APOE ε3, 3. The risk the disease timelines in the three aforementioned group consisted of subjects with APOE ε3, 4 and groups using the method selected after simulation ε4, 4 (Saunders et al., 1993; Kim et al., 2009; Genin experiments. We studied the positional variance et al., 2011). Subjects with APOE ε2, 4 (n=34) of the estimated orderings by creating 100 boot- were not included in either group because of the strapped samples of the data. presence of both protective and risk alleles. Experiment 4: The above experiment was re- Subject demographics and their APOE carrier- peated by including volumes of subfields of hip- ships are summarized in Table 1. The modalities pocampus (Iglesias et al., 2015) as biomarkers in- considered were structural imaging (T1-weighted stead of considering the entire hippocampus vol- MRI) biomarkers, biomarkers extracted from cere- ume as a single biomarker. We included the brospinal fluid (CSF), and cognitive biomarkers. tail of the hippocampus (Tail), Subiculum, CA1, Details of the MRI acquisition protocols of ADNI CA2/3, hilar region of the dentate gyrus (CA4), can be found in Jack Jr. et al. (2008, 2015). hippocampal fissure (Fissure), area 27 in Brod- Imaging biomarkers were estimated from T1- mann (1909) (Presubiculum), area 49 in Brod- weighted MRI scans analysed with FreeSurfer soft- mann (1909) (Parasubiculum), Molecular layer of ware v6.0 cross-sectional stream and outputs were the subiculum and CA fields (ML), granule cell and visually checked. We assumed a symmetric pattern molecular layer of the dentate gyrus (GC ML DG), of atrophy in AD and averaged imaging biomarkers and the hippocampus-amygdala transition area between the left and right hemisphere. (HATA). We excluded the white matter structures Experiment 3: For this experiment, the se- of Alveus and Fimbria in our analysis. lected imaging biomarkers were: volumetric mea- Experiment 5: In this experiment, we validated sures of the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, the disease stage (Υj) by computing its correlation fusiform gyrus, middle-temporal gyrus and pre- with the subjects’ MMSE and ADAS13 values. We cuneus, together with whole brain volume and ven- used a 10-fold cross validation, where the training tricles (Archetti et al., 2019; Frisoni et al., 2010; set was used to estimate the disease timeline in the Vemuri and Jack, 2010). The selected CSF based aforementioned groups and the test subjects’ dis- 7 ease stage was evaluated by placing them on this groups along with their uncertainty estimates. It disease timeline. We used the volume-based and can be seen that the uncertainty of the ordering CSF-based biomarkers from Experiment 3, but ex- in the protective group was high. Despite this cluded MMSE and ADAS13 scores from the model. uncertainty, some biomarkers (i.e. MMSE, NG and PTAU) seem to occur earlier than the other biomarkers in this group. 4. Results In the group of subjects with neutral alle- 4.1. Simulations les, ABETA was very prominently the earliest biomarker, followed by cognitive scores of MMSE Experiment 1: Figures 4 (a) and (b) show the and ADAS13. Among the CSF biomarkers, PTAU ordering errors (ε ) in Group 1 of the simulation S followed immediately after ABETA, which was in- datasets for DEBM, coupled DEBM and co-init turn followed by TAU. NFL and NG were late DEBM as a function of number of subjects in Group biomarkers. Among the structural biomarkers, vol- 1, when ε between the two groups changes from 0 O umes of fusiform and middle-temporal gyri were the to 1. Figures 4 (c), (d) and (e) show ε in Group S first to become abnormal, followed by ventricular 2 of the simulation datasets for the aforementioned volume and wholebrain volume. Hippocampus, pre- methods, as a function of number of subjects in cuneus and entorhinal volumes were late biomarkers Group 1. In our experiments, Group 1 dataset re- in this group. mains the same while Group 2 dataset changes as In the risk group, the CSF biomarkers followed a εO increase. Hence DEBM results do not change pattern that was similar to that of the neutral alle- with change in εO in Figure 4 (a) and (b), whereas in Figure 4 (c), DEBM results do not change with les. The cognitive biomarkers were early biomark- increase in number of subjects in Group 1. ers in this group as well. However the ordering in It can be seen that both coupled-training meth- structural biomarkers was very different from that ods (i.e., co-init DEBM and coupled DEBM) out- in the neutral group. Hippocampus and entorhi- perform the default method of independently train- nal volumes were early biomarkers in this group, ing DEBM models. It can also be observed that in followed by middle-temporal and fusiform gyri vol- both co-init DEBM and coupled DEBM the order- umes. Wholebrain, ventricular and precuneus volumes were late biomarkers. ing errors decrease as εO increases and that co-init DEBM outperforms coupled DEBM for lower val- Experiment 4: Figure 6 shows orderings of ues of εO, whereas the performance is on par with CSF, global cognition and volumetric biomarkers coupled DEBM for higher values of εO. along with that of Hippocampus subfields in the Experiment 2: Figures 5 (a) and (b) show εS APOE based protective, neutral and risk groups in Group 1 and Figures 5 (c), (d) and (e) show along with their uncertainty estimates. Parasubicu- the same in Group 2, when varying εG. Even with lum was an early biomarker in the protective group, εG 6= 0, coupled training (i.e., co-init DEBM and which became abnormal even before MMSE and coupled DEBM) outperformed the default method NG. Fissure, Tail and Presubiculum followed im- of independently training DEBM models. Co-init mediately after that. Subiculum was one of the DEBM showed negligible change in the errors when late biomarkers. εG 6= 0. The performance of coupled DEBM in Fissure and Parasubiculum were early structural Group 1 worsened for εG = +0.2d (Figure 5 (a)) biomarkers for the neutral group as well. This was and in Group 2 for εG = −0.2d (Figure 5 (d)). followed by dysfunction in CA3 and HATA. A majority of the Hippocampal subfields were 4.2. Studying the effect of APOE early biomarkers in the risk group, with ML, The results in Experiments 1 and 2 show that Subiculum and Tail as the three earliest regions. the performance of co-init DEBM is more accurate Experiment 5: The variation of MMSE and and robust than coupled DEBM in most scenarios. ADAS13 scores with respect to the estimated dis- We hence analyzed Experiments 3 − 5 using co-init ease stages has been plotted in Figure 8, for all three DEBM. groups. The patient stages showed a significant cor- Experiment 3: Figure 6 shows orderings of relation with both MMSE and ADAS13 scores. The CSF, global cognition and volumetric biomarkers correlation coefficients were also comparable in the in the APOE based protective, neutral and risk three groups. 8 (a) (b)

Figure 4: Experiment 1: The eﬀect of εO (the diﬀerence in groundtruth event orderings in the two groups) on the performance of the proposed methods. The shaded region in these plots represents standard deviation of the error in estimation of the proposed methods in 50 random iterations of simulations. The plots in (a) and (b) show the ordering errors in Group 1 using Coupled DEBM and Co-init DEBM with independent DEBM shown in both (a) and (b), as a function of number of subjects in Group 1. The plots in (c), (d) and (e) show the ordering errors in Group 2 using independent DEBM, Coupled DEBM and Co-init DEBM respectively as a function of number of subjects in Group 1.

9 (a) (b)

Figure 5: Experiment 2: The eﬀect of εG (diﬀerence in abnormal biomarker levels in the two groups), on the performance of the proposed methods. The shaded region represents standard deviation of the error in 50 random iterations. The plots in (a) and (b) show the ordering errors in Group 1 using Coupled DEBM and Co-init DEBM with independent DEBM shown in both (a) and (b), as a function of number of subjects in Group 1. The plots in (c), (d) and (e) show the ordering errors in Group 2 using independent DEBM, Coupled DEBM and Co-init DEBM respectively as a function of number of subjects in Group 1.

10 5. Discussion

DEBM models have been shown to be effective in determining the temporal cascade of biomarker abnormality as AD progresses, from cross-sectional data. In this work, we introduced a novel con- cept of splitting the different steps of DEBM into group-specific and group-aspecific parts for coupled training in stratified population. We considered two novel variations to split the steps of DEBM in this manner and through thorough experimen- tation in simulation datasets we observed that co- (a) Protective group init DEBM helps in obtaining more accurate orderings in a stratified population. Using this method, we estimated the biomarker cascades in AD progression with protective, neutral and risk alleles of APOE, based on cross-sectional ADNI data. While the findings in neutral and risk groups fit the amyloid cascade hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease with high-confidence (which posits that ABETA accumulation triggers neurodegeneration), the finding in the protective group shows evidence for an alternative pathway (with relatively low confidence). In this section, we discuss the insights provided by the simulation experiments (Section 5.1) used for method selection as well as the insights into the AD (b) Neutral group progression pathways provided by our experiments on the ADNI dataset (Section 5.2).

5.1. Choice of the method Coupled DEBM and co-init DEBM both split DEBM into group-specific and group-aspecific steps for coupled training of an EBM in stratified populations. Experiment 1 and 2 showed that coupled training of the group-aspecific parts of DEBM and independently training the group-specific parts of DEBM results in more accurate orderings in the groups better than the default approach of independently training a DEBM model in each group. (c) Risk group While splitting DEBM into group-specific and Figure 6: Experiment 3: Orderings of CSF, global cognition group-aspecific parts, we started with the as- and volumetric biomarkers in the APOE based protective, sumption that the latent true normal and abnor- neutral and risk groups along with their uncertainty esti- mal biomarker distributions in the groups are ei- mates. Uncertainty in the estimation of the ordering was measured by 100 repetitions of bootstrapping, in the three ther same or similar. The difference between co- APOE based groups. The color-map is based on the num- init DEBM and coupled DEBM is that, co-init ber of times a biomarker is at a position in 100 repetitions of DEBM accounts for slight differences in the under- bootstrapping. The number of subjects in the three groups lying biomarker distributions between the groups were 75, 411 and 485 respectively. The orderings were obtained using Co-init DEBM. whereas coupled DEBM does not. The simulation dataset generated in Experi- ment 1 had the same true normal and abnormal biomarker distributions in the different groups, from which the simulated subjects were randomly 11 (a) Protective group

(b) Neutral group

Figure 7: Experiment 4: Orderings of CSF, global cognition and volumetric biomarkers including those of Hippocampus subfields in the APOE based protective, neutral and risk groups along with their uncertainty estimates. Uncertainty in the estimation of the ordering was measured by 100 repetitions of bootstrapping, in the 3 APOE based groups. The color-map is based on the number of times a biomarker is at a position in 100 repetitions of bootstrapping. The biomarkers for hippocampus subfields are indicated with a prefix of [H] in this figure. The number of subjects in the three groups were 75, 411 and 485 respectively. The orderings were obtained using Co-Init DEBM. 12 (a) Protective: Stage vs MMSE (b) Protective: Stage vs ADAS13

(e) Risk: Stage vs MMSE (f) Risk: Stage vs ADAS13

Figure 8: Experiment 5: Correlation of estimated disease stages with MMSE and ADAS scores in the APOE based protective, neutral and risk groups. The plot on top of each subfigure shows the probability density function of the disease stages, and the plot on the right of each subfigure shows the probability density function of the cognitive score in the subfigure. The 2D plot in each subfigure shows the joint density function of the two axes. The line in each subfigure shows the linear regression of MMSE / ADAS scores with the estimated disease stage and the shaded area around the line shows its 95% confidence interval. Figures (a),(c) and (e) depict correlation between MMSE score and obtained disease stages in the three APOE based groups. Figures (b), (d) and (f) depict correlation between ADAS13 score and the obtained disease stages in the three APOE based groups. 13 sampled, aligning well with the assumption of cou- progression timeline. In this section, we discuss our pled DEBM. However, this did not result in overall results in these APOE carriership based groups. better accuracies for coupled DEBM than that of Our finding suggests that among the CSF co-init DEBM. Co-init DEBM was also more ro- biomarkers in the APOE risk and neutral groups, bust than coupled DEBM as its accuracy was less ABETA abnormality is the earliest biomarker event dependent on εO, the distance between the ground- followed by PTAU. This fits the amyloid cascade truth orderings in the two groups. hypothesis of AD, which posits that ABETA accu- Another observation in Experiment 1, which was mulation triggers neurodegeneration (Hardy, 2017). rather counter-intuitive, was that the errors made It also confirms the need for preventing the accu- by the co-init and coupled DEBM models decreased mulation of ABETA in high-risk patients. NFL as the distance between the ground-truth orderings and NG are late biomarkers in the neutral and risk in the two groups increased. When the orderings groups, which suggests that axonal (Ashton et al., are further apart, the combined biomarker distri- 2019) and synaptic (Thorsell et al., 2010) degen- butions in CN and AD groups have a larger over- eration do not occur until very late in the disease lap. The non-overlapping initialization (before the process in these groups. NG being abnormal after GMM optimization) thus results in the normal and PTAU and TAU in the neutral and risk groups is abnormal distributions to be further apart. We hy- also consistent with the previous findings that Tau pothesize that this results in a better estimation mediates synaptic damage in AD (Jadhav et al., of the mixing parameters during GMM optimiza- 2015). tion and in-turn resulted in more accurate order- In the protective group, we found that the ab- ings, as mixing-parameters are dependent on the normal NG and PTAU are the earliest CSF events, biomarker’s position in the ordering. even before ABETA becomes abnormal. This could In Experiment 2, we checked the performance of hint at the existence of an alternative pathway for our approaches when the assumption (true normal the formation of tau tangles in the brain before and abnormal biomarker distributions being same ABETA accumulation, as suggested in Weigand across groups) is violated in the dataset. This ex- et al. (2019), but needs more extensive validation. periment showed that the orderings obtained using Among the volumetric biomarkers, Entorhinal co-init DEBM are more robust to differences be- cortex is one of the early biomarkers in the tween the abnormal Gaussians across groups than risk group which is supported by the findings those obtained with coupled DEBM. With cou- in Huijbers et al. (2014), but is one of the last pled DEBM, the error increased in the group with biomarkers to become abnormal in the neutral al- weaker biomarkers i.e., Group 1 in the case of lele. Ventricular volume is a late biomarker in the εG = +0.2d and Group 2 in the case of εG = −0.2d. risk group but it becomes abnormal quite early This shows that coupled DEBM introduces a sys- in the neutral group as also observed by Nestor tematic bias in the estimation of ordering that is et al. (2008). Hippocampus volume is the earli- detrimental to the group with weaker biomarkers. est biomarker in the risk group, but is a relatively Co-init DEBM also showed a similar bias, but to a late biomarker in the neutral and protective groups. much lesser extent. This suggests that incidence of hippocampal spar- We hence selected co-init DEBM as the preferred ing AD (Ferreira et al., 2017) could correlate with approach for splitting and performed our analysis APOE carriership. on ADNI dataset using this approach. We expect Volumetric biomarkers of large regions are gener- that this idea of splitting DEBM into group-specific ally insensitive to small changes in volume of sub- and group-aspecific parts can be easily extended to parts. Thus to find the earliest regions that are the EBM introduced by Fonteijn et al. (2012). affected in AD progression, we analyzed the ordering of biomarker events while also including hippocampal subfields. Our results suggests that in 5.2. Cascade of biomarker changes in the APOE the risk group, molecular layer of the subiculum based groups and CA fields (ML) followed by subiculum and the Dividing the total population into groups based tail of the hippocampus are the earliest volumet- on APOE carriership enabled us to create more ric biomarker events. Tail of the hippocampus is phenotypically homogeneous groups (Weintraub not a histologically distinct region but consists of et al., 2019), each with potentially specific disease CA1-4 and dentate gyrus (Iglesias et al., 2015). 14 Each of these regions as well as subiculum were Acknowledgement observed to be associated to AD in Parker et al. (2019). Hippocampal fissure was one of the last regions to become abnormal. In contrast, in the neutral group, subiculum and CA1 were the last regions to become abnormal. Parasubiculum was one of the earliest region to become abnormal in this This work is part of the EuroPOND initiative, group. Parasubiculum as an early biomarker was which is funded by the European Union’s Hori- also observed in (Zhao et al., 2019) where they re- zon 2020 research and innovation programme under ported a significant difference in its volume between grant agreement No. 666992. E.E. Bron acknowl- CN and MCI. In the protective group, Parasubicu- edges support from the Dutch Heart Foundation lum, Fissure, Tail and Presubiculum were among (PPP Allowance, 2018B011), Medical Delta Diag- the early volumetric biomarkers. Our findings thus nostics 3.0: Dementia and Stroke, and the Nether- highlight that Hippocampus subfields are differen- lands CardioVascular Research Initiative (Heart- tially affected due to APOE carriership. Brain Connection: CVON2012-06, CVON2018-28). The findings related to these orderings of biomarker events were validated by correlating the Data collection and sharing for this project was patient stages derived from these orderings with funded by the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging MMSE and ADAS13 scores. Patient stages of sub- Initiative (ADNI) (National Institutes of Health jects in all three groups, when used as test-subjects Grant U01 AG024904) and DOD ADNI (Depart- in a cross-validated manner, showed a significant ment of Defense award number W81XWH-12-2- correlation (p < 0.001) with these scores. These 0012). ADNI is funded by the National Institute on correlations validate our findings and suggest that Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imag- these genotype-specific disease progression time- ing and Bioengineering, and through generous con- lines could be used for patient monitoring. tributions from the following: AbbVie, Alzheimers Association; Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Founda- tion; Araclon Biotech; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen; 6. Conclusion and Future work Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; CereSpir, Inc.; Cogstate; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; We conclude that co-init DEBM provides the Eli Lilly and Company; EuroImmun; F. Hoffmann- best accuracy and robustness when estimating or- La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genen- derings in stratified populations. Future work on tech, Inc.; Fujirebio; GE Healthcare; IXICO Ltd.; co-init DEBM can focus on extending the approach Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & De- for high-dimensional imaging biomarkers (Venka- velopment, LLC.; Johnson & Johnson Pharma- traghavan et al., 2019b). This work also pro- ceutical Research & Development LLC.; Lumos- vides groundwork for extending the method to- ity; Lundbeck; Merck & Co., Inc.; Meso Scale Di- wards hypothesis-free, data-driven stratification of agnostics, LLC.; NeuroRx Research; Neurotrack phenotypes. Technologies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corpora- We gained new insights into the disease progres- tion; Pfizer Inc.; Piramal Imaging; Servier; Takeda sion timeline of AD in the APOE based risk, neu- Pharmaceutical Company; and Transition Thera- tral and protective groups of APOE. While we ob- peutics. The Canadian Institutes of Health Re- served that the estimated disease progression time- search is providing funds to support ADNI clinical lines in the risk and neutral groups fit the amy- sites in Canada. Private sector contributions are loid cascade hypothesis with high confidence, the facilitated by the Foundation for the National In- estimated time lines in the protective group may stitutes of Health (www.fnih.org). The grantee or- suggest an alternative pathway for the formation ganization is the Northern California Institute for of tau tangles in the brain before amyloid β accu- Research and Education, and the study is coor- mulation, albeit with relatively low condence. We dinated by the Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Research expect that these genotype-specific disease progres- Institute at the University of Southern California. sion timelines will benefit patient monitoring in the ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for future, and may help optimize selection of eligible Neuro Imaging at the University of Southern Cali- subjects for clinical trials. fornia. 15 References Huang, J., Alexander, D., 2012. Probabilistic event cascades for Alzheimer’s disease, in: Pereira, F., Burges, C.J.C., Bottou, L., Weinberger, K.Q. (Eds.), Advances in Neural References Information Processing Systems 25. Curran Associates, Inc., pp. 3095–3103. Archetti, D., Ingala, S., Venkatraghavan, V., Wottschel, V., Huijbers, W., Mormino, E.C., Wigman, S.E., Ward, A.M., Young, A.L., Bellio, M., Bron, E.E., Klein, S., Barkhof, Vannini, P., McLaren, D.G., Becker, J.A., Schultz, A.P., F., Alexander, D.C., Oxtoby, N.P., Frisoni, G.B., Redolfi, Hedden, T., Johnson, K.A., Sperling, R.A., 2014. Amy- A., 2019. Multi-study validation of data-driven disease loid deposition is linked to aberrant entorhinal activity progression models to characterize evolution of biomark- among cognitively normal older adults. The Journal of ers in Alzheimer’s disease. NeuroImage: Clinical 24, neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neu- 101954. roscience 34, 52005210. Ashton, N.J., Leuzy, A., Lim, Y.M., Troakes, C., Hortobgyi, Iglesias, J.E., Augustinack, J.C., Nguyen, K., Player, C.M., T., Hglund, K., Aarsland, D., Lovestone, S., Schll, M., Player, A., Wright, M., Roy, N., Frosch, M.P., McKee, Blennow, K., Zetterberg, H., Hye, A., 2019. Increased A.C., Wald, L.L., Fischl, B., Leemput, K.V., 2015. A plasma neurofilament light chain concentration corre- computational atlas of the hippocampal formation using lates with severity of post-mortem neurofibrillary tangle ex vivo, ultra-high resolution mri: Application to adaptive pathology and neurodegeneration. Acta neuropathologica segmentation of in vivo mri. NeuroImage 115, 117 – 137. communications 7, 5. Jack Jr., C.R., Barnes, J., Bernstein, M.A., Borowski, B.J., Au, R., Piers, R.J., Lancashire, L., 2015. Back to the future: Brewer, J., Clegg, S., Dale, A.M., Carmichael, O., Ching, Alzheimer’s disease heterogeneity revisited. Alzheimer’s & C., DeCarli, C., Desikan, R.S., Fennema-Notestine, C., Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring Fjell, A.M., Fletcher, E., Fox, N.C., Gunter, J., Gutman, 1, 368 – 370. B.A., Holland, D., Hua, X., Insel, P., Kantarci, K., Kil- Blennow, K., Hampel, H., 2003. Csf markers for incipient liany, R.J., Krueger, G., Leung, K.K., Mackin, S., Mail- Alzheimer’s disease. The Lancet Neurology 2, 605 – 613. lard, P., Malone, I.B., Mattsson, N., McEvoy, L., Modat, Blennow, K., Hampel, H., Weiner, M., Zetterberg, H., 2010. M., Mueller, S., Nosheny, R., Ourselin, S., Schuff, N., Sen- Cerebrospinal fluid and plasma biomarkers in Alzheimer jem, M.L., Simonson, A., Thompson, P.M., Rettmann, D., disease. Nature Reviews Neurology 6, 131 – 144. Vemuri, P., Walhovd, K., Zhao, Y., Zuk, S., Weiner, M., Bloom, G.S., 2014. Amyloid- and Tau: The Trigger and Bul- 2015. Magnetic resonance imaging in alzheimer’s disease let in Alzheimer Disease Pathogenesis. JAMA Neurology neuroimaging initiative 2. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 11, 71, 505–508. 740–756. Brodmann, K., 1909. Vergleichende Lokalisationslehre der Jack Jr., C.R., Bernstein, M.A., Fox, N.C., Thompson, Grohirnrinde : in ihren Prinzipien dargestellt auf Grund P., Alexander, G., Harvey, D., Borowski, B., Britson, des Zellenbaues. Leipzig : Barth. P.J., L. Whitwell, J., Ward, C., Dale, A.M., Felmlee, Ferreira, D., Nordberg, A., Westman, E., 2020. Biological J.P., Gunter, J.L., Hill, D.L., Killiany, R., Schuff, N., subtypes of alzheimer disease. Neurology 94, 436–448. Fox-Bosetti, S., Lin, C., Studholme, C., DeCarli, C.S., Ferreira, D., Verhagen, C., Hernndez-cabrera, J.A., Cavallin, Krueger, G., Ward, H.A., Metzger, G.J., Scott, K.T., Mallozzi, R., Blezek, D., Levy, J., Debbins, J.P., Fleisher, L., Guo, C.j., Ekman, U., Muehlboeck, J.., Simmons, A., Barroso, J., Wahlund, L.o., Westman, E., 2017. Dis- A.S., Albert, M., Green, R., Bartzokis, G., Glover, G., Mugler, J., Weiner, M.W., 2008. The alzheimer’s disease tinct subtypes of alzheimer’s disease based on patterns of brain atrophy: longitudinal trajectories and clinical ap- neuroimaging initiative (adni): Mri methods. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 27, 685–691. plications. Scientific Reports (Nature Publisher Group) 7, 46263. Jack Jr., C.R., Knopman, D.S., Jagust, W.J., Petersen, R.C., Weiner, M.W., Aisen, P.S., Shaw, L.M., Vemuri, Fligner, M.A., Verducci, J.S., 1988. Multistage ranking models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, P., Wiste, H.J., Weigand, S.D., Lesnick, T.G., Pankratz, V.S., Donohue, M.C., Trojanowski, J.Q., 2013. Tracking 892–901. Fonteijn, H.M., Modat, M., Clarkson, M.J., Barnes, J., pathophysiological processes in Alzheimer’s disease: an Lehmann, M., Hobbs, N.Z., Scahill, R.I., Tabrizi, S.J., updated hypothetical model of dynamic biomarkers. The Ourselin, S., Fox, N.C., Alexander, D.C., 2012. An event- Lancet Neurology 12, 207 – 216. based model for disease progression and its application Jadhav, S., Cubinkova, V., Zimova, I., Brezovakova, V., in familial Alzheimer’s disease and Huntington’s disease. Madari, A., Cigankova, V., Zilka, N., 2015. Tau-mediated NeuroImage 60, 1880 – 1889. synaptic damage in alzheimer’s disease. Translational Frisoni, G.B., Fox, N.C., Jack, C.R., Scheltens, P., Thomp- neuroscience 6, 214226. son, P.M., 2010. The clinical use of structural mri in Jedynak, B.M., Lang, A., Liu, B., Katz, E., Zhang, Y., Alzheimer disease. Nature Reviews Neurology 6, 6777. Wyman, B.T., Raunig, D., Jedynak, C.P., Caffo, B., Genin, E., Hannequin, D., Wallon, D., Sleegers, K., Prince, J.L., 2012. A computational neurodegenerative Hiltunen, M., Combarros, O., Bullido, M., Engelborghs, disease progression score: Method and results with the S., Paul, D., Berr, C., Pasquier, F., Dubois, B., Tognoni, alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative cohort. Neu- G., Fivet, N., Brouwers, N., Bettens, K., Arosio, B., Coto, roImage 63, 1478 – 1486. E., Zompo, M., Campion, D., 2011. Apoe and alzheimer Jin, M., Cao, L., Dai, Y.p., 2019. Role of neurofilament light disease: A major gene with semi-dominant inheritance. chain as a potential biomarker for alzheimer’s disease: A Molecular psychiatry 16, 903–7. correlative meta-analysis. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience Hardy, J., 2017. The discovery of Alzheimer-causing muta- 11, 254. tions in the APP gene and the formulation of the amyloid Kim, J., Basak, J.M., Holtzman, D.M., 2009. The role of cascade hypothesis. The FEBS Journal 284, 1040–1044. apolipoprotein e in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuron 63, 287 – 16 303. Venkatraghavan, V., Dubost, F., Bron, E., Niessen, W., van der Lee, S.J., Wolters, F.J., Ikram, M.K., Hofman, A., de Bruijne, M., Klein, S., 2019b. Event-based modeling Ikram, M.A., Amin, N., van Duijn, C.M., 2018. The effect with high-dimensional imaging biomarkers for estimating of apoe and other common genetic variants on the onset spatial progression of dementia, in: Chung, A., Gee, J., of alzheimer’s disease and dementia: a community-based Yushkevich, P., Bao, S. (Eds.), Information Processing in cohort study. The Lancet Neurology 17, 434 – 444. Medical Imaging - 26th International Conference, IPMI Lorenzi, M., Filippone, M., Frisoni, G.B., Alexander, D.C., 2019, Proceedings, Springer. pp. 169–180. Ourselin, S., 2017. Probabilistic disease progression mod- Weigand, A.J., Bangen, K.J., Thomas, K.R., Delano-Wood, eling to characterize diagnostic uncertainty: Application L., Gilbert, P.E., Brickman, A.M., Bondi, M.W., Initia- to staging and prediction in alzheimer’s disease. NeuroIm- tive, A.D.N., 2019. Is tau in the absence of amyloid on age . the Alzheimers continuum?: A study of discordant PET Mueller, S.G., Weiner, M.W., 2009. Selective effect of age, positivity. Brain Communications 2. apo e4, and alzheimer’s disease on hippocampal subfields. Weintraub, S., Teylan, M., Rader, B., Chan, K.C., Bollen- Hippocampus 19, 558–564. beck, M., Kukull, W.A., Coventry, C., Rogalski, E., Bigio, Murray, M.E., Graff-Radford, N.R., Ross, O.A., Petersen, E., Mesulam, M.M., 2019. APOE is a correlate of phe- R.C., Duara, R., Dickson, D.W., 2011. Neuropathologi- notypic heterogeneity in alzheimer disease in a national cally defined subtypes of alzheimer’s disease with distinct cohort. Neurology . clinical characteristics: a retrospective study. The Lancet de Wolf, F., Ghanbari, M., Licher, S., McRae-McKee, K., Neurology 10, 785 – 796. Gras, L., Weverling, G.J., Wermeling, P., Sedaghat, Nestor, S.M., Rupsingh, R., Borrie, M., Smith, M., Acco- S., Ikram, M.K., Waziry, R., Koudstaal, W., Klap, J., mazzi, V., Wells, J.L., Fogarty, J., Bartha, R., Alzheimer’s Kostense, S., Hofman, A., Anderson, R., Goudsmit, J., Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, 2008. Ventricular en- Ikram, M.A., 2020. Plasma tau, neurofilament light chain largement as a possible measure of alzheimer’s disease and amyloid- levels and risk of dementia; a population- progression validated using the alzheimer’s disease neu- based cohort study. Brain 143, 1220–1232. roimaging initiative database. Brain : a journal of neu- World Health Organization, 2017. Global action plan on the rology 131, 24432454. public health response to dementia 2017 - 2025 . Parker, T.D., Cash, D.M., Lane, C.A.S., Lu, K., Malone, Young, A.L., Oxtoby, N.P., Daga, P., Cash, D.M., Fox, I.B., Nicholas, J.M., James, S.N., Keshavan, A., Murray- N.C., Ourselin, S., Schott, J.M., Alexander, D.C., 2014. Smith, H., Wong, A., Buchanan, S.M., Keuss, S.E., Sudre, A data-driven model of biomarker changes in sporadic C.H., Modat, M., Thomas, D.L., Crutch, S.J., Richards, Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 137, 2564–2577. M., Fox, N.C., Schott, J.M., 2019. Hippocampal subfield Young, A.L., Oxtoby, N.P., Ourselin, S., Schott, J.M., volumes and pre-clinical alzheimers disease in 408 cogni- Alexander, D.C., 2015. A simulation system for biomarker tively normal adults born in 1946. PLOS ONE 14, 1–15. evolution in neurodegenerative disease. Medical Image Patterson, C., 2018. World Alzheimer Report 2018. Analysis 26, 47 – 56. Alzheimer’s Disease International. Zhao, W., Wang, X., Yin, C., He, M., Li, S., Han, Y., 2019. Saunders, A., Strittmatter, W., Schmechel, D., St. George- Trajectories of the hippocampal subfields atrophy in the Hyslop, P., Pericak-Vance, M., Joo, S., Rosi, B., Gusella, alzheimers disease: A structural imaging study. Frontiers J., Crapper-Mac Lachlan, D., Alberts, M., Hulette, C., in Neuroinformatics 13, 13. Crain, B., Goldgaber, D., Roses, A., 1993. Association of apolipoprotein e allele 4 with late-onset familial and sporadic Alzheimers disease. Neurology 43, 1467–1472. Schiratti, J.B., Allassonnière,S., Routier, A., Colliot, O., Durrleman, S., 2015. A mixed-effects model with time reparametrization for longitudinal univariate manifold- valued data, Springer International Publishing, Cham. pp. 564–575. Thorsell, A., Bjerke, M., Gobom, J., Brunhage, E., Van- mechelen, E., Andreasen, N., Hansson, O., Minthon, L., Zetterberg, H., Blennow, K., 2010. Neurogranin in cerebrospinal fluid as a marker of synaptic degeneration in alzheimer’s disease. Brain Research 1362, 13 – 22. Vemuri, P., Jack, C.R., 2010. Role of structural mri in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s research & therapy 2, 23. Venkatraghavan, V., Bron, E.E., Niessen, W.J., Klein, S., 2017. A discriminative event based model for Alzheimer’s disease progression modeling, in: Nietham- mer, M., Styner, M., Aylward, S., Zhu, H., Oguz, I., Yap, P.T., Shen, D. (Eds.), Information Processing in Med- ical Imaging, Springer International Publishing, Cham. pp. 121–133. Venkatraghavan, V., Bron, E.E., Niessen, W.J., Klein, S., 2019a. Disease progression timeline estimation for Alzheimer’s disease using discriminative event based modeling. NeuroImage 186, 518 – 532.