Blood-based biomarkers represent a scalable and accessible approach for the detection and monitoring of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and neurofilament light (NfL) are validated biomarkers for the detection of tau and neurodegenerative brain changes in AD, respectively. There is now emphasis to expand beyond these markers to detect and provide insight into the pathophysiological processes of AD. To this end, a reactive astrocytic marker, namely plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), has been of interest. Yet, little is known about the relationship between plasma GFAP and AD. Here, we examined the association between plasma GFAP, diagnostic status, and neuropsychological test performance. Diagnostic accuracy of plasma GFAP was compared with plasma measures of p-tau181 and NfL.

This sample included 567 participants from the Boston University (BU) Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC) Longitudinal Clinical Core Registry, including individuals with normal cognition (n=234), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n=180), and AD dementia (n=153). The sample included all participants who had a blood draw. Participants completed a comprehensive neuropsychological battery (sample sizes across tests varied due to missingness). Diagnoses were adjudicated during multidisciplinary diagnostic consensus conferences. Plasma samples were analyzed using the Simoa platform. Binary logistic regression analyses tested the association between GFAP levels and diagnostic status (i.e., cognitively impaired due to AD versus unimpaired), controlling for age, sex, race, education, and APOE e4 status. Area under the curve (AUC) statistics from receiver operating characteristics (ROC) using predicted probabilities from binary logistic regression examined the ability of plasma GFAP to discriminate diagnostic groups compared with plasma p-tau181 and NfL. Linear regression models tested the association between plasma GFAP and neuropsychological test performance, accounting for the above covariates.

The mean (SD) age of the sample was 74.34 (7.54), 319 (56.3%) were female, 75 (13.2%) were Black, and 223 (39.3%) were APOE e4 carriers. Higher GFAP concentrations were associated with increased odds for having cognitive impairment (GFAP z-score transformed: OR=2.233, 95% CI [1.609, 3.099], p<0.001; non-z-transformed: OR=1.004, 95% CI [1.002, 1.006], p<0.001). ROC analyses, comprising of GFAP and the above covariates, showed plasma GFAP discriminated the cognitively impaired from unimpaired (AUC=0.75) and was similar, but slightly superior, to plasma p-tau181 (AUC=0.74) and plasma NfL (AUC=0.74). A joint panel of the plasma markers had greatest discrimination accuracy (AUC=0.76). Linear regression analyses showed that higher GFAP levels were associated with worse performance on neuropsychological tests assessing global cognition, attention, executive functioning, episodic memory, and language abilities (ps<0.001) as well as higher CDR Sum of Boxes (p<0.001).

Higher plasma GFAP levels differentiated participants with cognitive impairment from those with normal cognition and were associated with worse performance on all neuropsychological tests assessed. GFAP had similar accuracy in detecting those with cognitive impairment compared with p-tau181 and NfL, however, a panel of all three biomarkers was optimal. These results support the utility of plasma GFAP in AD detection and suggest the pathological processes it represents might play an integral role in the pathogenesis of AD.

Blood-based biomarkers offer a more feasible alternative to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) detection, management, and study of disease mechanisms than current in vivo measures. Given their novelty, these plasma biomarkers must be assessed against postmortem neuropathological outcomes for validation. Research has shown utility in plasma markers of the proposed AT(N) framework, however recent studies have stressed the importance of expanding this framework to include other pathways. There is promising data supporting the usefulness of plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in AD, but GFAP-to-autopsy studies are limited. Here, we tested the association between plasma GFAP and AD-related neuropathological outcomes in participants from the Boston University (BU) Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC).

This sample included 45 participants from the BU ADRC who had a plasma sample within 5 years of death and donated their brain for neuropathological examination. Most recent plasma samples were analyzed using the Simoa platform. Neuropathological examinations followed the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center procedures and diagnostic criteria. The NIA-Reagan Institute criteria were used for the neuropathological diagnosis of AD. Measures of GFAP were log-transformed. Binary logistic regression analyses tested the association between GFAP and autopsy-confirmed AD status, as well as with semi-quantitative ratings of regional atrophy (none/mild versus moderate/severe) using binary logistic regression. Ordinal logistic regression analyses tested the association between plasma GFAP and Braak stage and CERAD neuritic plaque score. Area under the curve (AUC) statistics from receiver operating characteristics (ROC) using predicted probabilities from binary logistic regression examined the ability of plasma GFAP to discriminate autopsy-confirmed AD status. All analyses controlled for sex, age at death, years between last blood draw and death, and APOE e4 status.

Of the 45 brain donors, 29 (64.4%) had autopsy-confirmed AD. The mean (SD) age of the sample at the time of blood draw was 80.76 (8.58) and there were 2.80 (1.16) years between the last blood draw and death. The sample included 20 (44.4%) females, 41 (91.1%) were White, and 20 (44.4%) were APOE e4 carriers. Higher GFAP concentrations were associated with increased odds for having autopsy-confirmed AD (OR=14.12, 95% CI [2.00, 99.88], p=0.008). ROC analysis showed plasma GFAP accurately discriminated those with and without autopsy-confirmed AD on its own (AUC=0.75) and strengthened as the above covariates were added to the model (AUC=0.81). Increases in GFAP levels corresponded to increases in Braak stage (OR=2.39, 95% CI [0.71-4.07], p=0.005), but not CERAD ratings (OR=1.24, 95% CI [0.004, 2.49], p=0.051). Higher GFAP levels were associated with greater temporal lobe atrophy (OR=10.27, 95% CI [1.53,69.15], p=0.017), but this was not observed with any other regions.

The current results show that antemortem plasma GFAP is associated with non-specific AD neuropathological changes at autopsy. Plasma GFAP could be a useful and practical biomarker for assisting in the detection of AD-related changes, as well as for study of disease mechanisms.

Response to lithium in patients with bipolar disorder is associated with clinical and transdiagnostic genetic factors. The predictive combination of these variables might help clinicians better predict which patients will respond to lithium treatment.

To use a combination of transdiagnostic genetic and clinical factors to predict lithium response in patients with bipolar disorder.

This study utilised genetic and clinical data (n = 1034) collected as part of the International Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLi+Gen) project. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) were computed for schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, and then combined with clinical variables using a cross-validated machine-learning regression approach. Unimodal, multimodal and genetically stratified models were trained and validated using ridge, elastic net and random forest regression on 692 patients with bipolar disorder from ten study sites using leave-site-out cross-validation. All models were then tested on an independent test set of 342 patients. The best performing models were then tested in a classification framework.

The best performing linear model explained 5.1% (P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response and was composed of clinical variables, PRS variables and interaction terms between them. The best performing non-linear model used only clinical variables and explained 8.1% (P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response. A priori genomic stratification improved non-linear model performance to 13.7% (P = 0.0001) and improved the binary classification of lithium response. This model stratified patients based on their meta-polygenic loadings for major depressive disorder and schizophrenia and was then trained using clinical data.

Using PRS to first stratify patients genetically and then train machine-learning models with clinical predictors led to large improvements in lithium response prediction. When used with other PRS and biological markers in the future this approach may help inform which patients are most likely to respond to lithium treatment.

Public support for the implementation of personalised medicine policies (PMPs) within routine care is important owing to the high financial costs involved and the potential for redirection of resources from other services.

We aimed to determine the attributes of a PMP most likely to elicit public support for implementation. We also aimed to determine whether such support differed between a depression PMP and one for cystic fibrosis.

In a discrete-choice experiment, paired vignettes illustrating both the current model of care (CMoC) and a hypothetical PMP for either depression or cystic fibrosis were presented to a representative sample of the UK public (n = 2804). Each vignette integrated varying attributes, including anticipated therapeutic benefit over CMoC, and the annual cost to the taxpayer. Respondents were invited to express their preference for either the PMP or CMoC within each pair.

The financial cost was the most important attribute influencing public support for PMPs. Respondents favoured PMP implementation where it benefited a higher proportion of patients or was anticipated to be more effective than CMoC. A reduction in services for non-eligible patients reduced the likelihood of support for PMPs. Respondents were more willing to fund PMPs for cystic fibrosis than for depression.

Cost is a significant factor in the public's support for PMPs, but essential caveats, such as protection for services available to PMP-ineligible patients, may also apply. Further research should explore the factors contributing to condition-specific nuances in public support for PMPs.

Disaster impact databases are important resources for informing research, policy, and decision making. Therefore, understanding the underpinning methodology of data collection used by the databases, how they differ, and quality indicators of the data recorded is essential in ensuring that their use as reference points is valid.

The Australian Disaster Resilience Knowledge Hub (AIDRKH) is an open-source platform supported by government to inform disaster management practice. A comparative descriptive review of the Disaster Mapper (hosted at AIDRKH) and the international Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) was undertaken to identify differences in how Australian disasters are captured and measured.

The results show substantial variation in identification and classification of disasters across hazard impacts and hazard types and a lack of data structure for the systematic reporting of contextual and impact variables.

These differences may have implications for reporting, academic analysis, and thus knowledge management informing disaster prevention and response policy or plans. Consistency in reporting methods based on international classification standards is recommended to improve the validity and usefulness of this Australian database.

A recent genome-wide association study (GWAS) identified 12 independent loci significantly associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Polygenic risk scores (PRS), derived from the GWAS, can be used to assess genetic overlap between ADHD and other traits. Using ADHD samples from several international sites, we derived PRS for ADHD from the recent GWAS to test whether genetic variants that contribute to ADHD also influence two cognitive functions that show strong association with ADHD: attention regulation and response inhibition, captured by reaction time variability (RTV) and commission errors (CE).

The discovery GWAS included 19 099 ADHD cases and 34 194 control participants. The combined target sample included 845 people with ADHD (age: 8–40 years). RTV and CE were available from reaction time and response inhibition tasks. ADHD PRS were calculated from the GWAS using a leave-one-study-out approach. Regression analyses were run to investigate whether ADHD PRS were associated with CE and RTV. Results across sites were combined via random effect meta-analyses.

When combining the studies in meta-analyses, results were significant for RTV (R2 = 0.011, β = 0.088, p = 0.02) but not for CE (R2 = 0.011, β = 0.013, p = 0.732). No significant association was found between ADHD PRS and RTV or CE in any sample individually (p > 0.10).

We detected a significant association between PRS for ADHD and RTV (but not CE) in individuals with ADHD, suggesting that common genetic risk variants for ADHD influence attention regulation.

Implementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium.

A key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing.

Identifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects.

In summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia.