Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project discovery and replication criteria for cases and controls: Data from a community-based prospective cohort study with autopsy follow-up

Paul K. Crane, Tatiana Foroud, Thomas J. Montine, Eric B. Larson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: The Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) used different criteria for assigning case and control status from the discovery and replication phases of the project. We considered data from a community-based prospective cohort study with autopsy follow-up where participants could be categorized as case, control, or neither by both definitions and compared the two sets of criteria. Methods: We used data from the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study including Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV criteria for dementia status, McKhann et al. criteria for clinical Alzheimer's disease, and Braak and Consortium to Establish a Registry for AD findings on neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to categorize the 621 ACT participants of European ancestry who died and came to autopsy. We applied ADSP discovery and replication definitions to identify controls, cases, and people who were neither controls nor cases. Results: There was some agreement between the discovery and replication definitions. Major areas of discrepancy included the finding that only 40% of the discovery sample controls had sufficiently low levels of neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to be considered controls by the replication criteria and the finding that 16% of the replication phase cases were diagnosed with non-AD dementia during life and thus were excluded as cases for the discovery phase. Conclusions: These findings should inform interpretation of genetic association findings from the ADSP. Differences in genetic association findings between the two phases of the study may reflect these different phenotype definitions from the discovery and replication phase of the ADSP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAlzheimer's and Dementia
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Autopsy
Alzheimer Disease
Cohort Studies
Prospective Studies
Neurofibrillary Tangles
Amyloid Plaques
Dementia
Registries
Phenotype

Keywords

  • Alzheimer's disease
  • Genetics
  • Phenotype

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Health Policy
  • Developmental Neuroscience
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

@article{cfb5368bb4ca40a1965b2145f511243d,
title = "Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project discovery and replication criteria for cases and controls: Data from a community-based prospective cohort study with autopsy follow-up",
abstract = "Introduction: The Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) used different criteria for assigning case and control status from the discovery and replication phases of the project. We considered data from a community-based prospective cohort study with autopsy follow-up where participants could be categorized as case, control, or neither by both definitions and compared the two sets of criteria. Methods: We used data from the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study including Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV criteria for dementia status, McKhann et al. criteria for clinical Alzheimer's disease, and Braak and Consortium to Establish a Registry for AD findings on neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to categorize the 621 ACT participants of European ancestry who died and came to autopsy. We applied ADSP discovery and replication definitions to identify controls, cases, and people who were neither controls nor cases. Results: There was some agreement between the discovery and replication definitions. Major areas of discrepancy included the finding that only 40{\%} of the discovery sample controls had sufficiently low levels of neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to be considered controls by the replication criteria and the finding that 16{\%} of the replication phase cases were diagnosed with non-AD dementia during life and thus were excluded as cases for the discovery phase. Conclusions: These findings should inform interpretation of genetic association findings from the ADSP. Differences in genetic association findings between the two phases of the study may reflect these different phenotype definitions from the discovery and replication phase of the ADSP.",
keywords = "Alzheimer's disease, Genetics, Phenotype",
author = "Crane, {Paul K.} and Tatiana Foroud and Montine, {Thomas J.} and Larson, {Eric B.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.jalz.2017.09.010",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Alzheimer's and Dementia",
issn = "1552-5260",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project discovery and replication criteria for cases and controls

T2 - Data from a community-based prospective cohort study with autopsy follow-up

AU - Crane, Paul K.

AU - Foroud, Tatiana

AU - Montine, Thomas J.

AU - Larson, Eric B.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Introduction: The Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) used different criteria for assigning case and control status from the discovery and replication phases of the project. We considered data from a community-based prospective cohort study with autopsy follow-up where participants could be categorized as case, control, or neither by both definitions and compared the two sets of criteria. Methods: We used data from the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study including Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV criteria for dementia status, McKhann et al. criteria for clinical Alzheimer's disease, and Braak and Consortium to Establish a Registry for AD findings on neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to categorize the 621 ACT participants of European ancestry who died and came to autopsy. We applied ADSP discovery and replication definitions to identify controls, cases, and people who were neither controls nor cases. Results: There was some agreement between the discovery and replication definitions. Major areas of discrepancy included the finding that only 40% of the discovery sample controls had sufficiently low levels of neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to be considered controls by the replication criteria and the finding that 16% of the replication phase cases were diagnosed with non-AD dementia during life and thus were excluded as cases for the discovery phase. Conclusions: These findings should inform interpretation of genetic association findings from the ADSP. Differences in genetic association findings between the two phases of the study may reflect these different phenotype definitions from the discovery and replication phase of the ADSP.

AB - Introduction: The Alzheimer's Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP) used different criteria for assigning case and control status from the discovery and replication phases of the project. We considered data from a community-based prospective cohort study with autopsy follow-up where participants could be categorized as case, control, or neither by both definitions and compared the two sets of criteria. Methods: We used data from the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study including Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV criteria for dementia status, McKhann et al. criteria for clinical Alzheimer's disease, and Braak and Consortium to Establish a Registry for AD findings on neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to categorize the 621 ACT participants of European ancestry who died and came to autopsy. We applied ADSP discovery and replication definitions to identify controls, cases, and people who were neither controls nor cases. Results: There was some agreement between the discovery and replication definitions. Major areas of discrepancy included the finding that only 40% of the discovery sample controls had sufficiently low levels of neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques to be considered controls by the replication criteria and the finding that 16% of the replication phase cases were diagnosed with non-AD dementia during life and thus were excluded as cases for the discovery phase. Conclusions: These findings should inform interpretation of genetic association findings from the ADSP. Differences in genetic association findings between the two phases of the study may reflect these different phenotype definitions from the discovery and replication phase of the ADSP.

KW - Alzheimer's disease

KW - Genetics

KW - Phenotype

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032390428&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032390428&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.09.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.09.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 29055816

AN - SCOPUS:85032390428

JO - Alzheimer's and Dementia

JF - Alzheimer's and Dementia

SN - 1552-5260

ER -