Multi-pathological contributions toward atrophy patterns in the Alzheimer's disease continuum

Abstract

Introduction: Heterogeneity in downstream atrophy in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is predominantly investigated in relation to pathological hallmarks (A beta, tau) and co-pathologies (cerebrovascular burden) independently. However, the proportional contribution of each pathology in determining atrophy pattern remains unclear. We assessed heterogeneity in atrophy using two recently conceptualized dimensions: typicality (typical AD atrophy at the center and deviant atypical atrophy on either extreme including limbic predominant to hippocampal sparing patterns) and severity (overall neurodegeneration spanning minimal atrophy to diffuse typical AD atrophy) in relation to A beta, tau, and cerebrovascular burden. Methods: We included 149 A beta + individuals on the AD continuum (cognitively normal, prodromal AD, AD dementia) and 163 A beta- cognitively normal individuals from the ADNI. We modeled heterogeneity in MRI-based atrophy with continuous-scales of typicality (ratio of hippocampus to cortical volume) and severity (total gray matter volume). Partial correlation models investigated the association of typicality/severity with (a) A beta (global A beta PET centiloid), tau (global tau PET SUVR), cerebrovascular (total white matter hypointensity volume) burden (b) four cognitive domains (memory, executive function, language, visuospatial composites). Using multiple regression, we assessed the association of each pathological burden and typicality/severity with cognition. Results: (a) In the AD continuum, typicality (r = -0.31, p < 0.001) and severity (r = -0.37, p < 0.001) were associated with tau burden after controlling for A beta, cerebrovascular burden and age. Findings imply greater tau pathology in limbic predominant atrophy and diffuse atrophy. (b) Typicality was associated with memory (r = 0.49, p < 0.001) and language scores (r = 0.19, p = 0.02). Severity was associated with memory (r = 0.26, p < 0.001), executive function (r = 0.24, p = 0.003) and language scores (r = 0.29, p < 0.001). Findings imply better cognitive performance in hippocampal sparing and minimal atrophy patterns. Beyond typicality/severity, tau burden but not A beta and cerebrovascular burden explained cognition. Conclusion: In the AD continuum, atrophy-based severity was more strongly associated with tau burden than typicality after accounting for A beta and cerebrovascular burden. Cognitive performance in memory, executive function and language domains was explained by typicality and/or severity and additionally tau pathology. Typicality and severity may differentially reflect burden arising from tau pathology but not A beta or cerebrovascular pathologies which need to be accounted for when investigating AD heterogeneity.