Risk Factors for Young-Onset Dementia in the UK Biobank.

Importance: There is limited information on modifiable risk factors for young-onset dementia (YOD). Objective: To examine factors that are associated with the incidence of YOD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study used data from the UK Biobank, with baseline assessment between 2006 and 2010 and follow-up until March 31, 2021, for England and Scotland, and February 28, 2018, for Wales. Participants younger than 65 years and without a dementia diagnosis at baseline assessment were included in this study. Participants who were 65 years and older and those with dementia at baseline were excluded. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to April 2023. Exposures: A total of 39 potential risk factors were identified from systematic reviews of late-onset dementia and YOD risk factors and grouped into domains of sociodemographic factors (education, socioeconomic status, and sex), genetic factors (apolipoprotein E), lifestyle factors (physical activity, alcohol use, alcohol use disorder, smoking, diet, cognitive activity, social isolation, and marriage), environmental factors (nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, pesticide, and diesel), blood marker factors (vitamin D, C-reactive protein, estimated glomerular filtration rate function, and albumin), cardiometabolic factors (stroke, hypertension, diabetes, hypoglycemia, heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and aspirin use), psychiatric factors (depression, anxiety, benzodiazepine use, delirium, and sleep problems), and other factors (traumatic brain injury, rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid dysfunction, hearing impairment, and handgrip strength). Main Outcome and Measures: Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to study the association between the risk factors and incidence of YOD. Factors were tested stepwise first within domains and then across domains. Results: Of 356 052 included participants, 197 036 (55.3%) were women, and the mean (SD) age at baseline was 54.6 (7.0) years. During 2 891 409 person-years of follow-up, 485 incident YOD cases (251 of 485 men [51.8%]) were observed, yielding an incidence rate of 16.8 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 15.4-18.3). In the final model, 15 factors were significantly associated with a higher YOD risk, namely lower formal education, lower socioeconomic status, carrying 2 apolipoprotein ε4 allele, no alcohol use, alcohol use disorder, social isolation, vitamin D deficiency, high C-reactive protein levels, lower handgrip strength, hearing impairment, orthostatic hypotension, stroke, diabetes, heart disease, and depression. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, several factors, mostly modifiable, were associated with a higher risk of YOD. These modifiable risk factors should be incorporated in future dementia prevention initiatives and raise new therapeutic possibilities for YOD.

Artificial intelligence for dementia prevention.

INTRODUCTION: A wide range of modifiable risk factors for dementia have been identified. Considerable debate remains about these risk factors, possible interactions between them or with genetic risk, and causality, and how they can help in clinical trial recruitment and drug development. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) may refine understanding. METHODS: ML approaches are being developed in dementia prevention. We discuss exemplar uses and evaluate the current applications and limitations in the dementia prevention field. RESULTS: Risk-profiling tools may help identify high-risk populations for clinical trials; however, their performance needs improvement. New risk-profiling and trial-recruitment tools underpinned by ML models may be effective in reducing costs and improving future trials. ML can inform drug-repurposing efforts and prioritization of disease-modifying therapeutics. DISCUSSION: ML is not yet widely used but has considerable potential to enhance precision in dementia prevention. HIGHLIGHTS: Artificial intelligence (AI) is not widely used in the dementia prevention field. Risk-profiling tools are not used in clinical practice. Causal insights are needed to understand risk factors over the lifespan. AI will help personalize risk-management tools for dementia prevention. AI could target specific patient groups that will benefit most for clinical trials.

Artificial intelligence for neurodegenerative experimental models.

INTRODUCTION: Experimental models are essential tools in neurodegenerative disease research. However, the translation of insights and drugs discovered in model systems has proven immensely challenging, marred by high failure rates in human clinical trials. METHODS: Here we review the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in experimental medicine for dementia research. RESULTS: Considering the specific challenges of reproducibility and translation between other species or model systems and human biology in preclinical dementia research, we highlight best practices and resources that can be leveraged to quantify and evaluate translatability. We then evaluate how AI and ML approaches could be applied to enhance both cross-model reproducibility and translation to human biology, while sustaining biological interpretability. DISCUSSION: AI and ML approaches in experimental medicine remain in their infancy. However, they have great potential to strengthen preclinical research and translation if based upon adequate, robust, and reproducible experimental data. HIGHLIGHTS: There are increasing applications of AI in experimental medicine. We identified issues in reproducibility, cross-species translation, and data curation in the field. Our review highlights data resources and AI approaches as solutions. Multi-omics analysis with AI offers exciting future possibilities in drug discovery.

Artificial intelligence for biomarker discovery in Alzheimer's disease and dementia.

With the increase in large multimodal cohorts and high-throughput technologies, the potential for discovering novel biomarkers is no longer limited by data set size. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning approaches have been developed to detect novel biomarkers and interactions in complex data sets. We discuss exemplar uses and evaluate current applications and limitations of AI to discover novel biomarkers. Remaining challenges include a lack of diversity in the data sets available, the sheer complexity of investigating interactions, the invasiveness and cost of some biomarkers, and poor reporting in some studies. Overcoming these challenges will involve collecting data from underrepresented populations, developing more powerful AI approaches, validating the use of noninvasive biomarkers, and adhering to reporting guidelines. By harnessing rich multimodal data through AI approaches and international collaborative innovation, we are well positioned to identify clinically useful biomarkers that are accurate, generalizable, unbiased, and acceptable in clinical practice. HIGHLIGHTS: Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches may accelerate dementia biomarker discovery. Remaining challenges include data set suitability due to size and bias in cohort selection. Multimodal data, diverse data sets, improved machine learning approaches, real-world validation, and interdisciplinary collaboration are required.

Artificial intelligence for diagnostic and prognostic neuroimaging in dementia: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) and neuroimaging offer new opportunities for diagnosis and prognosis of dementia. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies reporting AI for neuroimaging in diagnosis and/or prognosis of cognitive neurodegenerative diseases. RESULTS: A total of 255 studies were identified. Most studies relied on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset. Algorithmic classifiers were the most commonly used AI method (48%) and discriminative models performed best for differentiating Alzheimer's disease from controls. The accuracy of algorithms varied with the patient cohort, imaging modalities, and stratifiers used. Few studies performed validation in an independent cohort. DISCUSSION: The literature has several methodological limitations including lack of sufficient algorithm development descriptions and standard definitions. We make recommendations to improve model validation including addressing key clinical questions, providing sufficient description of AI methods and validating findings in independent datasets. Collaborative approaches between experts in AI and medicine will help achieve the promising potential of AI tools in practice. HIGHLIGHTS: There has been a rapid expansion in the use of machine learning for diagnosis and prognosis in neurodegenerative disease Most studies (71%) relied on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset with no other individual dataset used more than five times There has been a recent rise in the use of more complex discriminative models (e.g., neural networks) that performed better than other classifiers for classification of AD vs healthy controls We make recommendations to address methodological considerations, addressing key clinical questions, and validation We also make recommendations for the field more broadly to standardize outcome measures, address gaps in the literature, and monitor sources of bias.

Artificial intelligence for dementia drug discovery and trials optimization.

Drug discovery and clinical trial design for dementia have historically been challenging. In part these challenges have arisen from patient heterogeneity, length of disease course, and the tractability of a target for the brain. Applying big data analytics and machine learning tools for drug discovery and utilizing them to inform successful clinical trial design has the potential to accelerate progress. Opportunities arise at multiple stages in the therapy pipeline and the growing availability of large medical data sets opens possibilities for big data analyses to answer key questions in clinical and therapeutic challenges. However, before this goal is reached, several challenges need to be overcome and only a multi-disciplinary approach can promote data-driven decision-making to its full potential. Herein we review the current state of machine learning applications to clinical trial design and drug discovery, while presenting opportunities and recommendations that can break down the barriers to implementation.

Artificial intelligence for dementia research methods optimization.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) approaches are increasingly being used in dementia research. However, several methodological challenges exist that may limit the insights we can obtain from high-dimensional data and our ability to translate these findings into improved patient outcomes. To improve reproducibility and replicability, researchers should make their well-documented code and modeling pipelines openly available. Data should also be shared where appropriate. To enhance the acceptability of models and AI-enabled systems to users, researchers should prioritize interpretable methods that provide insights into how decisions are generated. Models should be developed using multiple, diverse datasets to improve robustness, generalizability, and reduce potentially harmful bias. To improve clarity and reproducibility, researchers should adhere to reporting guidelines that are co-produced with multiple stakeholders. If these methodological challenges are overcome, AI and ML hold enormous promise for changing the landscape of dementia research and care. HIGHLIGHTS: Machine learning (ML) can improve diagnosis, prevention, and management of dementia. Inadequate reporting of ML procedures affects reproduction/replication of results. ML models built on unrepresentative datasets do not generalize to new datasets. Obligatory metrics for certain model structures and use cases have not been defined. Interpretability and trust in ML predictions are barriers to clinical translation.

Artificial intelligence for dementia genetics and omics.

Genetics and omics studies of Alzheimer's disease and other dementia subtypes enhance our understanding of underlying mechanisms and pathways that can be targeted. We identified key remaining challenges: First, can we enhance genetic studies to address missing heritability? Can we identify reproducible omics signatures that differentiate between dementia subtypes? Can high-dimensional omics data identify improved biomarkers? How can genetics inform our understanding of causal status of dementia risk factors? And which biological processes are altered by dementia-related genetic variation? Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning approaches give us powerful new tools in helping us to tackle these challenges, and we review possible solutions and examples of best practice. However, their limitations also need to be considered, as well as the need for coordinated multidisciplinary research and diverse deeply phenotyped cohorts. Ultimately AI approaches improve our ability to interrogate genetics and omics data for precision dementia medicine. HIGHLIGHTS: We have identified five key challenges in dementia genetics and omics studies. AI can enable detection of undiscovered patterns in dementia genetics and omics data. Enhanced and more diverse genetics and omics datasets are still needed. Multidisciplinary collaborative efforts using AI can boost dementia research.

Artificial intelligence for dementia-Applied models and digital health.

INTRODUCTION: The use of applied modeling in dementia risk prediction, diagnosis, and prognostics will have substantial public health benefits, particularly as "deep phenotyping" cohorts with multi-omics health data become available. METHODS: This narrative review synthesizes understanding of applied models and digital health technologies, in terms of dementia risk prediction, diagnostic discrimination, prognosis, and progression. Machine learning approaches show evidence of improved predictive power compared to standard clinical risk scores in predicting dementia, and the potential to decompose large numbers of variables into relatively few critical predictors. RESULTS: This review focuses on key areas of emerging promise including: emphasis on easier, more transparent data sharing and cohort access; integration of high-throughput biomarker and electronic health record data into modeling; and progressing beyond the primary prediction of dementia to secondary outcomes, for example, treatment response and physical health. DISCUSSION: Such approaches will benefit also from improvements in remote data measurement, whether cognitive (e.g., online), or naturalistic (e.g., watch-based accelerometry).

Socioeconomic Deprivation, Genetic Risk, and Incident Dementia.

INTRODUCTION: Socioeconomic factors and genetic predisposition are established risk factors for dementia. It remains unclear whether associations of socioeconomic deprivation with dementia incidence are modified by genetic risk. METHODS: Participants in the UK Biobank aged ≥60 years and of European ancestry without dementia at baseline (2006-2010) were eligible for the analysis, with the main exposures area-level deprivation based on the Townsend Deprivation Index and individual-level socioeconomic deprivation based on car and home ownership, housing type and income, and polygenic risk of dementia. Dementia was ascertained in hospital and death records. Analysis was conducted in 2021. RESULTS: In this cohort study, 196,368 participants (mean [SD] age=64.1 [2.9] years, 52.7% female) were followed up for 1,545,316 person-years (median [IQR] follow-up=8.0 [7.4-8.6] years). In high genetic risk and high area-level deprivation, 1.71% (95% CI=1.44, 2.01) developed dementia compared with 0.56% (95% CI=0.48, 0.65) in low genetic risk and low-to-moderate area-level deprivation (hazard ratio=2.31; 95% CI=1.84, 2.91). In high genetic risk and high individual-level deprivation, 1.78% (95% CI=1.50, 2.09) developed dementia compared with 0.31% (95% CI=0.20, 0.45) in low genetic risk and low individual-level deprivation (hazard ratio=4.06; 95% CI=2.63, 6.26). There was no significant interaction between genetic risk and area-level (p=0.77) or individual-level (p=0.07) deprivation. An imaging substudy including 11,083 participants found a greater burden of white matter hyperintensities associated with higher socioeconomic deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level and area-level socioeconomic deprivation were associated with increased dementia risk. Dementia prevention interventions may be particularly effective if targeted to households and areas with fewer socioeconomic resources, regardless of genetic vulnerability.

Dementia prevention in memory clinics: recommendations from the European task force for brain health services.

Observational population studies indicate that prevention of dementia and cognitive decline is being accomplished, possibly as an unintended result of better vascular prevention and healthier lifestyles. Population aging in the coming decades requires deliberate efforts to further decrease its prevalence and societal burden. Increasing evidence supports the efficacy of preventive interventions on persons with intact cognition and high dementia risk. We report recommendations for the deployment of second-generation memory clinics (Brain Health Services) whose mission is evidence-based and ethical dementia prevention in at-risk individuals. The cornerstone interventions consist of (i) assessment of genetic and potentially modifiable risk factors including brain pathology, and risk stratification, (ii) risk communication with ad-hoc protocols, (iii) risk reduction with multi-domain interventions, and (iv) cognitive enhancement with cognitive and physical training. A roadmap is proposed for concept validation and ensuing clinical deployment.

Artificial Intelligence for Dementia Research Methods Optimization.

INTRODUCTION: Machine learning (ML) has been extremely successful in identifying key features from high-dimensional datasets and executing complicated tasks with human expert levels of accuracy or greater. METHODS: We summarize and critically evaluate current applications of ML in dementia research and highlight directions for future research. RESULTS: We present an overview of ML algorithms most frequently used in dementia research and highlight future opportunities for the use of ML in clinical practice, experimental medicine, and clinical trials. We discuss issues of reproducibility, replicability and interpretability and how these impact the clinical applicability of dementia research. Finally, we give examples of how state-of-the-art methods, such as transfer learning, multi-task learning, and reinforcement learning, may be applied to overcome these issues and aid the translation of research to clinical practice in the future. DISCUSSION: ML-based models hold great promise to advance our understanding of the underlying causes and pathological mechanisms of dementia.

Mediterranean diet adherence is associated with lower dementia risk, independent of genetic predisposition: findings from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The identification of effective dementia prevention strategies is a major public health priority, due to the enormous and growing societal cost of this condition. Consumption of a Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) has been proposed to reduce dementia risk. However, current evidence is inconclusive and is typically derived from small cohorts with limited dementia cases. Additionally, few studies have explored the interaction between diet and genetic risk of dementia. METHODS: We used Cox proportional hazard regression models to explore the associations between MedDiet adherence, defined using two different scores (Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener [MEDAS] continuous and Mediterranean diet Pyramid [PYRAMID] scores), and incident all-cause dementia risk in 60,298 participants from UK Biobank, followed for an average 9.1 years. The interaction between diet and polygenic risk for dementia was also tested. RESULTS: Higher MedDiet adherence was associated with lower dementia risk (MEDAS continuous: HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.65-0.91; PYRAMID: HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.73-1.02 for highest versus lowest tertiles). There was no significant interaction between MedDiet adherence defined by the MEDAS continuous and PYRAMID scores and polygenic risk for dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Higher adherence to a MedDiet was associated with lower dementia risk, independent of genetic risk, underlining the importance of diet in dementia prevention interventions.

Harnessing Transcriptomic Signals for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis to Identify Novel Drugs and Enhance Risk Prediction.

Introduction: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease. This study integrates the latest ALS genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary statistics with functional genomic annotations with the aim of providing mechanistic insights into ALS risk loci, inferring drug repurposing opportunities, and enhancing prediction of ALS risk and clinical characteristics. Methods: Genes associated with ALS were identified using GWAS summary statistic methodology including SuSiE SNP-based fine-mapping, and transcriptome- and proteome-wide association study (TWAS/PWAS) analyses. Using several approaches, gene associations were integrated with the DrugTargetor drug-gene interaction database to identify drugs that could be repurposed for the treatment of ALS. Furthermore, ALS gene associations from TWAS were combined with observed blood expression in two external ALS case-control datasets to calculate polytranscriptomic scores and evaluate their utility for prediction of ALS risk and clinical characteristics, including site of onset, age at onset, and survival. Results: SNP-based fine-mapping, TWAS and PWAS identified 117 genes associated with ALS, with TWAS and PWAS providing novel mechanistic insights. Drug repurposing analyses identified five drugs significantly enriched for interactions with ALS associated genes, with directional analyses highlighting α-glucosidase inhibitors may exacerbate ALS pathology. Additionally, drug class enrichment analysis showed calcium channel blockers may reduce ALS risk. Across the two observed expression target samples, ALS polytranscriptomic scores significantly predicted ALS risk (R2 = 4%; p-value = 2.1×10-21). Conclusions: Functionally-informed analyses of ALS GWAS summary statistics identified novel mechanistic insights into ALS aetiology, highlighted several therapeutic research avenues, and enabled statistically significant prediction of ALS risk.

Harnessing the potential of machine learning and artificial intelligence for dementia research.

Progress in dementia research has been limited, with substantial gaps in our knowledge of targets for prevention, mechanisms for disease progression, and disease-modifying treatments. The growing availability of multimodal data sets opens possibilities for the application of machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) to help answer key questions in the field. We provide an overview of the state of the science, highlighting current challenges and opportunities for utilisation of AI approaches to move the field forward in the areas of genetics, experimental medicine, drug discovery and trials optimisation, imaging, and prevention. Machine learning methods can enhance results of genetic studies, help determine biological effects and facilitate the identification of drug targets based on genetic and transcriptomic information. The use of unsupervised learning for understanding disease mechanisms for drug discovery is promising, while analysis of multimodal data sets to characterise and quantify disease severity and subtype are also beginning to contribute to optimisation of clinical trial recruitment. Data-driven experimental medicine is needed to analyse data across modalities and develop novel algorithms to translate insights from animal models to human disease biology. AI methods in neuroimaging outperform traditional approaches for diagnostic classification, and although challenges around validation and translation remain, there is optimism for their meaningful integration to clinical practice in the near future. AI-based models can also clarify our understanding of the causality and commonality of dementia risk factors, informing and improving risk prediction models along with the development of preventative interventions. The complexity and heterogeneity of dementia requires an alternative approach beyond traditional design and analytical approaches. Although not yet widely used in dementia research, machine learning and AI have the potential to unlock current challenges and advance precision dementia medicine.

Ocular Biomarkers for Alzheimer Disease Dementia: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

Importance: Several ocular biomarkers have been proposed for the early detection of Alzheimer disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), particularly fundus photography, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and OCT angiography (OCTA). Objective: To perform an umbrella review of systematic reviews to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ocular biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from January 2000 to November 2021. The references of included reviews were also searched. Study Selection: Systematic reviews investigating the diagnostic accuracy of ocular biomarkers to detect AD and MCI, in secondary care or memory clinics, against established clinical criteria or clinical judgment. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline checklist was followed and the Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews tool was used to assess review quality. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified outcome was the accuracy of ocular biomarkers for diagnosing AD and MCI. The area under the curve (AUC) was derived from standardized mean difference. Results: From the 591 titles, 14 systematic reviews were included (median [range] number of studies in each review, 14 [5-126]). Only 4 reviews were at low risk of bias on all Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews domains. The imaging-derived parameters with the most evidence for detecting AD compared with healthy controls were OCT peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (38 studies including 1883 patients with AD and 2510 controls; AUC = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.79); OCTA foveal avascular zone (5 studies including 177 patients with AD and 371 controls; AUC = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.50-0.89); and saccadic eye movements prosaccade latency (30 studies including 651 patients with AD/MCI and 771 controls; AUC = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.69). Antisaccade error was investigated in fewer studies (12 studies including 424 patients with AD/MCI and 382 controls) and yielded the best accuracy (AUC = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88). Conclusions and Relevance: This umbrella review has highlighted limitations in design and reporting of the existing research on ocular biomarkers for diagnosing AD. Parameters with the best evidence showed poor to moderate diagnostic accuracy in cross-sectional studies. Future longitudinal studies should investigate whether changes in OCT and OCTA measurements over time can yield accurate predictions of AD onset.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and ischemic stroke: A Mendelian randomization study.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have found an association between attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and ischemic stroke. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether genetic liability to ADHD has a causal effect on ischemic stroke and its subtypes. METHODS: In this two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study, genetic variants (nine single-nucleotide polymorphisms; P < 5 × 10-8) using as instrumental variables for the analysis was obtained from a genome-wide association study of ADHD with 19,099 cases and 34,194 controls. The outcome datasets for stroke and its subtypes were obtained from the MEGASTROKE consortium, with 40,585 cases and 406,111 controls. MR inverse variance-weighted method was conducted to investigate the effect of genetic liability to ADHD on ischemic stroke and its subtypes. Sensitivity analyses (median-based methods, MR-Egger, MR-robust adjusted profile scores, MR-pleiotropy residual sum and outlier) were also utilized to assess horizontal pleiotropy and remove outliers. Multivariable MR (MVMR) analyses were conducted to explore potential mediators. RESULTS: Genetically determined ADHD (per 1 SD) was significantly associated with a higher risk of any ischemic stroke (AIS) (odds ratio (OR) = 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-1.25, P = 0.002) and large-artery atherosclerotic stroke (LAS) (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.10-1.76, P = 0.005). The significant association was also found in sensitivity analyses and MVMR analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic liability to ADHD was significantly associated with an increased risk of AIS, especially LAS. The association between ADHD and LAS was independent of age of smoking initiation but mediated by coronary artery disease.

Healthy Lifestyle, Genetic Risk and Brain Health: A Gene-Environment Interaction Study in the UK Biobank.

Genetic susceptibility and lifestyle affect the risk of dementia but there is little direct evidence for their associations with preclinical changes in brain structure. We investigated the association of genetic dementia risk and healthy lifestyle with brain morphometry, and whether effects from elevated genetic risk are modified by lifestyle changes. We used prospective data from up to 25,894 UK Biobank participants (median follow-up of 8.8 years), and defined healthy lifestyle according to American Heart Association criteria as BMI < 30, no smoking, healthy diet and regular physical activity). Higher genetic risk was associated with lower hippocampal volume (beta −0.16 cm3, 95% CI −0.22, −0.11) and total brain volume (−4.34 cm3, 95% CI −7.68, −1.01) in participants aged ≥60 years but not <60 years. Healthy lifestyle was associated with higher total brain, grey matter and hippocampal volumes, and lower volume of white matter hyperintensities, with no effect modification by age or genetic risk. In conclusion, adverse effects of high genetic risk on brain health were only found in older participants, while adhering to healthy lifestyle recommendations is beneficial regardless of age or genetic risk.

New horizons for caring for people with dementia in hospital: the DEMENTIA CARE pointers for service change.

Approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions are older adults and almost half of these are likely to have some form of dementia. People with dementia are not only at an increased risk of adverse outcomes once admitted, but the unfamiliar environment and routinised practices of the wards and acute care can be particularly challenging for them, heightening their confusion, agitation and distress further impacting the ability to optimise their care. It is well established that a person-centred care approach helps alleviate some of the unfamiliar stress but how to embed this in the acute-care setting remains a challenge. In this article, we highlight the challenges that have been recognised in this area and put forward a set of evidence-based 'pointers for service change' to help organisations in the delivery of person-centred care. The DEMENTIA CARE pointers cover areas of: dementia awareness and understanding, education and training, modelling of person-centred care by clinical leaders, adapting the environment, teamwork (not being alone), taking the time to 'get to know', information sharing, access to necessary resources, communication, involving family (ask family), raising the profile of dementia care, and engaging volunteers. The pointers extend previous guidance, by recognising the importance of ward cultures that prioritise dementia care and institutional support that actively seeks to raise the profile of dementia care. The pointers provide a range of simple to more complex actions or areas for hospitals to help implement person-centred care approaches; however, embedding them within the organisational cultures of hospitals is the next challenge.

Development of prognostic models for survival and care status in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the most common human prion disease, typically presents as a rapidly progressive dementia and has a highly variable prognosis. Despite this heterogeneity, clinicians need to give timely advice on likely prognosis and care needs. No prognostic models have been developed that predict survival or time to increased care status from the point of diagnosis. We aimed to develop clinically useful prognostic models with data from a large prospective observational cohort study. Five hundred and thirty-seven patients were visited by mobile teams of doctors and nurses from the National Health Service National Prion Clinic within 5 days of notification of a suspected diagnosis of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, enrolled to the study between October 2008 and March 2020, and followed up until November 2020. Prediction of survival over 10-, 30- and 100-day periods was the main outcome. Escalation of care status over the same time periods was a secondary outcome for a subsample of 113 patients with low care status at initial assessment. Two hundred and eighty (52.1%) patients were female and the median age was 67.2 (interquartile range 10.5) years. Median survival from initial assessment was 24 days (range 0-1633); 414 patients died within 100 days (77%). Ten variables were included in the final prediction models: sex; days since symptom onset; baseline care status; PRNP codon 129 genotype; Medical Research Council Prion Disease Rating Scale, Motor and Cognitive Examination Scales; count of MRI abnormalities; Mini-Mental State Examination score and categorical disease phenotype. The strongest predictor was PRNP codon 129 genotype (odds ratio 6.65 for methionine homozygous compared with methionine-valine heterozygous; 95% confidence interval 3.02-14.68 for 30-day mortality). Of 113 patients with lower care status at initial assessment, 88 (78%) had escalated care status within 100 days, with a median of 35 days. Area under the curve for models predicting outcomes within 10, 30 and 100 days was 0.94, 0.92 and 0.91 for survival, and 0.87, 0.87 and 0.95 for care status escalation, respectively. Models without PRNP codon 129 genotype, which is not immediately available at initial assessment, were also highly accurate. We have developed a model that can accurately predict survival and care status escalation in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease patients using clinical, imaging and genetic data routinely available in a specialist national referral service. The utility and generalizability of these models to other settings could be prospectively evaluated when recruiting to clinical trials and providing clinical care.