Comparing approaches based on the global functional organization of the brain versus local connectivity to predict tau‐PET across the Alzheimer’s disease phenotypic spectrum

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPredictive models of tau‐PET accumulation have largely relied on the functional connectome to estimate its spatial patterns in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Patterns of global functional organization represent a promising avenue as they encapsulate many biological properties relevant to neurodevelopment, cognition and degeneration. We compared approaches based on local connectivity (from task‐free fMRI) and global organization (from FDG‐PET) to predict regional tau‐PET across AD phenotypes.MethodWe included 430 cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals (214 A+T‐, 216 A+T+) and 62 amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), 64 amnestic AD, 21 dysexecutive AD (dAD), 41 logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and 49 posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) patients (all A+T+) from the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, and Neurodegenerative Research Groups (referred to as “Mayo cohort”). The connectivity approach consisted of assessing the relationship between a region’s tau level and its functional connectivity to the region of highest tau (epicenter). The global organization approach consisted of 1) performing a principal component analysis on 3000 FDG‐PET images that did not overlap with the Mayo cohort, 2) projecting FDG‐PET images of the Mayo cohort onto the low‐dimensional space generated in Step 1 and extracting corresponding weighted values across the first 100 components, 3) using these weighted values as predictors of regional tau‐PET in a linear model and determining optimal parameters based on predicted R 2 values, and 4) using the parameters from the model built in Step 3 to predict tau‐PET in the ADNI cohort (n = 86) (Fig.2).ResultThe connectivity‐based approach yielded adjusted R 2 values ranging from 0.19‐0.45 across diagnostic groups (Fig.1). The global organization approach yielded averaged adjusted R 2 and predicted R 2 values of 0.71 and 0.63, respectively, in the Mayo cohort. Out‐of‐sample median R 2 in the ADNI cohort was 0.41 (range 0.10‐0.60) (Fig.3).ConclusionAn unbiased approach based on the global functional organization of the brain and using an imaging modality widely used in clinical settings outperformed a connectome‐based one to predict regional tau‐PET across the AD phenotypic spectrum. Patterns of tau accumulation may better relate to the large‐scale physiology of the brain underlying specific mental functions rather than local connectivity factors.