Deciphering the clinico‐radiological heterogeneity of dysexecutive Alzheimer’s disease using unsupervised machine learning techniques

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundDysexecutive Alzheimer's disease (dAD) is a relatively early‐onset variant of AD primarily degrading core executive functions in the absence of predominant behavioral symptoms. Clinical observations suggest substantial variability in clinical, cognitive and neuroimaging profiles within this syndrome. In this presentation, we will discuss our ongoing work disentangling this heterogeneity using unsupervised machine learning techniques.MethodWe collected clinical, neuropsychological and multimodal imaging (MRI, FDG‐PET, amyloid‐PET, tau‐PET) data on 52 dAD patients assessed in our behavioral neurology clinic at Mayo Clinic Rochester. We first performed a spectral clustering analysis based on FDG‐PET to delineate latent patterns of network degeneration (referred as “eigenbrains”) and assessed the relationships between these eigenbrains and clinical and cognitive symptomatology. We then performed a hierarchical clustering on these eigenbrains to derive data‐driven subtypes of dAD. We compared clinical and cognitive data between subtypes, and then compared the imaging profiles to 52 amyloid‐negative age‐ and sex‐matched controls.ResultSix eigenbrains explained approximatively 48% of the variance in FDG‐PET patterns and primarily reflected heteromodal to primary motor/sensory, left‐right hemispheric asymmetry, and anterior‐to‐posterior gradients of macro‐scale cortical organization (Fig 1). These eigenbrains differentially related to reported age at symptom onset, degree of clinical impairment, and performance on a wide range of cognitive domains (executive functions, episodic memory, and visuospatial). Hierarchical clustering revealed four dAD subtypes (diffuse, biparietal, left‐hemisphere, right‐hemisphere). These subtypes differed in reported age at symptom onset and cognitive profile, where the heteromodal‐diffuse subtype exhibited an overall worse clinical picture and the biparietal had a milder profile compared to other subtypes, which was not explained by disease duration. Additionally, spatial patterns of tau distribution and neurodegeneration overlapped with patterns of FDG‐PET hypometabolism in each subtype, whereas patterns of amyloid deposition were similar across subtypes (Figs 2 & 3).ConclusionAlmost half of the variance in macro‐scale patterns of hypometabolism in this dAD cohort was accounted for by six eigenbrains. These eigenbrains captured the inter‐individual variability in age at symptom onset and cognitive impairment. Four dAD subtypes derived from these eigenbrains revealed meaningful differences in clinical, cognitive, and imaging profiles. Recognizing this heterogeneity has significant clinical implications for diagnosis, prognosis, and symptom monitoring.