Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Longitudinal associations of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and slow-wave sleep with plasma Alzheimer's disease biomarkers.

Created on 09 Oct 2026

Authors

Jeongyeon Hwang, Luisa F Figueredo, Daphne I Valencia, Thomas M Tolbert, Eriko Hamada, Li Zhou, Joshua L Gills, Joaquin Ruiz, Katarina R Martillo, Sarah S Chu, Ankita Kumar, Esther M Blessing, Omonigho M Bubu, Ankit Parekh, Korey Kam, Anna E Mullins, David M Rapoport, Indu Ayappa, Ricardo S Osorio, Andrew W Varga

Published in

Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. Volume 22. Issue 10. Pages e71910.

Abstract

Data on how sleep architecture relates to progression of plasma Alzheimer's disease biomarkers remains limited.
Sixty-four cognitively unimpaired older adults (ages 55-90) underwent plasma collection twice 2.6 years apart and polysomnography proximate to the first plasma collection. Plasma amyloid beta (Aβ) 42 and 40 were measured via mass spectrometry.
Frontal slow-wave activity (SWA) was inversely associated with plasma Aβ42/40 at cross-section in bivariate analysis and in a covariate-adjusted model. In comparison, low rapid eye movement (REM) sleep percentage was associated with a large longitudinal decline in annualized blood-based Aβ42/40. In exploratory analyses, the association between low REM sleep percentage and faster decline in Aβ42/40 ratio was stronger in the amyloid-positive group.
In cognitively unimpaired older adults, non-REM SWA correlates with cross-sectional amyloid load, whereas REM sleep may predict accelerated amyloid accumulation in preclinical stage, suggesting both may serve as early biomarkers and modifiable interventional targets.

PMID:
42851166
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 09 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 6
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement