Abstract
Background
Mathematical models of complex diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, have the potential to play a significant role in personalized medicine. Specifically, models can be personalized by fitting parameters with individual data for the purpose of discovering primary underlying disease drivers, predicting natural history, and assessing the effects of theoretical interventions. Previous work in causal/mechanistic modeling of Alzheimer’s Disease progression has modeled the disease at the cellular level and on a short time scale, such as minutes to hours. No previous studies have addressed mechanistic modeling on a personalized level using clinically validated biomarkers in individual subjects.
Objectives
This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of personalizing a causal model of Alzheimer’s Disease progression using longitudinal biomarker data.
Design/Setting/Participants/Measurements
We chose the Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Cascade model, a widely-referenced hypothetical model of Alzheimer’s Disease based on the amyloid cascade hypothesis, which we had previously implemented mathematically as a mechanistic model. We used available longitudinal demographic and serial biomarker data in over 800 subjects across the cognitive spectrum from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. The data included participants that were cognitively normal, had mild cognitive impairment, or were diagnosed with dementia (probable Alzheimer’s Disease). The model consisted of a sparse system of differential equations involving four measurable biomarkers based on cerebrospinal fluid proteins, imaging, and cognitive testing data.
Results
Personalization of the Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Cascade model with individual serial biomarker data yielded fourteen personalized parameters in each subject reflecting physiologically meaningful characteristics. These included growth rates, latency values, and carrying capacities of the various biomarkers, most of which demonstrated significant differences across clinical diagnostic groups. The model fits to training data across the entire cohort had a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 0.09 (SD 0.081) on a variable scale between zero and one, and were robust, with over 90% of subjects showing an RMSE of < 0.2. Similarly, in a subset of subjects with data on all four biomarkers in at least one test set, performance was high on the test sets, with a mean RMSE of 0.15 (SD 0.117), with 80% of subjects demonstrating an RMSE < 0.2 in the estimation of future biomarker points. Cluster analysis of parameters revealed two distinct endophenotypic groups, with distinct biomarker profiles and disease trajectories.
Conclusion
Results support the feasibility of personalizing mechanistic models based on individual biomarker trajectories and suggest that this approach may be useful for reclassifying subjects on the Alzheimer’s clinical spectrum. This computational modeling approach is not limited to the Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Cascade hypothesis, and can be applied to any mechanistic hypothesis of disease progression in the Alzheimer’s field that can be monitored with biomarkers. Thus, it offers a computational platform to compare and validate various disease hypotheses, personalize individual biomarker trajectories and predict individual response to theoretical prevention and therapeutic intervention strategies.
Data availability: Access to the ADNI dataset is publicly available via http://adni.loni.usc.edu.
References
Voit EO. Systems Biology in Medicine and Drug Development. In: Science G, editor. A First Course in Systems Biology: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; 2013. p. 347–72.
Jack CR, Jr., Holtzman DM. Biomarker modeling of Alzheimer’s disease. Neuron. 2013;80(6):1347–58.
Jack CR, Jr., Knopman DS, Jagust WJ, Petersen RC, Weiner MW, Aisen PS, et al. Tracking pathophysiological processes in Alzheimer’s disease: an updated hypothetical model of dynamic biomarkers. Lancet neurology. 2013;12(2):207–16.
Petrella JR, Hao W, Rao A, Doraiswamy PM. Computational Causal Modeling of the Dynamic Biomarker Cascade in Alzheimer’s Disease. Comput Math Methods Med. 2019;2019:6216530.
Hao W, Lenhart S, Petrella JR. Optimal anti-amyloid-beta therapy for Alzheimer’s disease via a personalized mathematical model. PLoS Comput Biol. 2022;18(9):e1010481.
Weiner MW, Veitch DP, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, Cairns NJ, Cedarbaum J, et al. Impact of the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, 2004 to 2014. Alzheimers Dement. 2015;11(7):865–84.
Weiner MW, Veitch DP, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, Cairns NJ, Green RC, et al. The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 3: Continued innovation for clinical trial improvement. Alzheimers Dement. 2017;13(5):561–71.
Tanpitukpongse TP, Mazurowski MA, Ikhena J, Petrella JR, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging I. Predictive Utility of Marketed Volumetric Software Tools in Subjects at Risk for Alzheimer Disease: Do Regions Outside the Hippocampus Matter? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(3):546–52.
Hao WR, Harlim J. An Equation-by-Equation Method for Solving the Multidimensional Moment Constrained Maximum Entropy Problem. Comm App Math Com Sc. 2018;13(2):189–214.
Fletcher R. Practical Methods of Optimization. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
Sorensen DC. Newton’s Method with a Model Trust Region Modification. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis. 1982;19(2):409–26.
Ma H, Zhou T, Li X, Maraganore D, Heianza Y, Qi L. Early-life educational attainment, APOE epsilon4 alleles, and incident dementia risk in late life. Geroscience. 2022;44(3):1479–88.
Petersen RC. Mild Cognitive Impairment Criteria in Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: Meeting Biological Expectations. Neurology. 2021;97(12):597–9.
Gamberger D, Lavrac N, Srivatsa S, Tanzi RE, Doraiswamy PM. Identification of clusters of rapid and slow decliners among subjects at risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):6763.
Moravveji S, Doyon N, Mashreghi J, Duchesne S. A Scoping Review of Mathematical Models Covering Alzheimer’s Disease Progression. bioRxiv. 2022:1–11.
Hoore M, Khailaie S, Montaseri G, Mitra T, Meyer-Hermann M. Mathematical Model Shows How Sleep May Affect Amyloid-beta Fibrillization. Biophys J. 2020;119(4):862–72.
Lindstrom MR, Chavez MB, Gross-Sable EA, Hayden EY, Teplow DB. From reaction kinetics to dementia: A simple dimer model of Alzheimer’s disease etiology. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(7):e1009114.
Liu H, Wei C, He H, Liu X. Evaluating Alzheimer’s Disease Progression by Modeling Crosstalk Network Disruption. Front Neurosci. 2015;9:523.
Pallitto MM, Murphy RM. A mathematical model of the kinetics of beta-amyloid fibril growth from the denatured state. Biophys J. 2001;81(3):1805–22.
Hao W, Friedman A. Mathematical model on Alzheimer’s disease. BMC Syst Biol. 2016;10(1):108.
Helal M, Hingant E, Pujo-Menjouet L, Webb GF. Alzheimer’s disease: analysis of a mathematical model incorporating the role of prions. J Math Biol. 2014;69(5):1207–35.
Helal M, Igel-Egalon A, Lakmeche A, Mazzocco P, Perrillat-Mercerot A, Pujo-Menjouet L, et al. Stability analysis of a steady state of a model describing Alzheimer’s disease and interactions with prion proteins. J Math Biol. 2019;78(1–2):57–81.
Kuznetsov IA, Kuznetsov AV. How the formation of amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles may be related: a mathematical modelling study. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci. 2018;474(2210):20170777.
Kuznetsov IA, Kuznetsov AV. Simulating the effect of formation of amyloid plaques on aggregation of tau protein. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci. 2018;474(2220):20180511.
Gabor A, Villaverde AF, Banga JR. Parameter identifiability analysis and visualization in large-scale kinetic models of biosystems. BMC Syst Biol. 2017;11(1):54.
Donohue MC, Jacqmin-Gadda H, Le Goff M, Thomas RG, Raman R, Gamst AC, et al. Estimating long-term multivariate progression from short-term data. Alzheimers Dement. 2014;10(5 Suppl):S400–10.
Fonteijn HM, Modat M, Clarkson MJ, Barnes J, Lehmann M, Hobbs NZ, et al. An event-based model for disease progression and its application in familial Alzheimer’s disease and Huntington’s disease. Neuroimage. 2012;60(3):1880–9.
Iturria-Medina Y, Carbonell FM, Sotero RC, Chouinard-Decorte F, Evans AC, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging I. Multifactorial causal model of brain (dis)organization and therapeutic intervention: Application to Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroimage. 2017;152:60–77.
Jedynak BM, Lang A, Liu B, Katz E, Zhang Y, Wyman BT, et al. A computational neurodegenerative disease progression score: method and results with the Alzheimer’s disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort. Neuroimage. 2012;63(3):1478–86.
Ritchie M, Gillen DL, Grill JD. Recruitment across two decades of NIH-funded Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2023;15(1):28.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Rohit Raguram for his valuable contribution in writing the initial code for this project, and for financial support during the initial stages of this project from Patricia S. Beach, in memory of her husband, James Robert Beach.
Funding
Funding: JRP was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) [DMS-2052676]. WH was supported in part by NSF [DMS-2052685] and NIH [1R35GM146894]. Data collection and sharing for this project was funded by the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (National Institutes of Health Grant U01 AG024904) and DOD ADNI (Department of Defense award number W81XWH-12-2-0012). ADNI is funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: AbbVie, Alzheimer’s Association; Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation; Araclon Biotech; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; CereSpir, Inc.; Cogstate; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; EuroImmun; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genentech, Inc.; Fujirebio; GE Healthcare; IXICO Ltd.;Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.; Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC.; Lumosity; Lundbeck; Merck & Co., Inc.; Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.; NeuroRx Research; Neurotrack Technologies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Piramal Imaging; Servier; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company; and Transition Therapeutics. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is providing funds to support ADNI clinical sites in Canada. Private sector contributions are facilitated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (https://www.fnih.org). The grantee organization is the Northern California Institute for Research and Education, and the study is coordinated by the Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Research Institute at the University of Southern California. ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of Southern California. PMD was supported by a grant from ADNI.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical standards: ADNI was approved by IRBs of all participating sites and all subjects gave written informed consent for data collection and sharing. This report is solely an analysis of deidentified data and hence is exempt under human subjects research.
Conflict of interest: JRP has served on medical advisory boards for cortechs.ai, Biogen and icometrix. PMD has received grants, advisory/board fees and/or stock from several health and technology companies. PMD is a co- inventor on several patents for the diagnosis or treatment of dementias. No competing interest is declared for other authors.
Additional information
Data used in preparation of this article were obtained from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (adni.loni.usc.edu). As such, the investigators within the ADNI contributed to the design and implementation of ADNI and/or provided data but did not participate in analysis or writing of this report. A complete listing of ADNI investigators can be found at: http://adni.loni.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/how_to_apply/ADNI_Acknowledgement_List.pdf
Supplementary Material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Petrella, J.R., Jiang, J., Sreeram, K. et al. Personalized Computational Causal Modeling of the Alzheimer Disease Biomarker Cascade. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 11, 435–444 (2024). https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2023.134
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2023.134