This study examines the relationship of serum total tau, neurofilament light (NFL), ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) with neurocognitive performance in service members and veterans with a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Service members (n = 488) with a history of uncomplicated mild (n = 172), complicated mild, moderate, severe, or penetrating TBI (sTBI; n = 126), injured controls (n = 116), and non-injured controls (n = 74) prospectively enrolled from Military Treatment Facilities. Participants completed a blood draw and neuropsychological assessment a year or more post-injury. Six neuropsychological composite scores and presence/absence of mild neurocognitive disorder (MNCD) were evaluated. Within each group, stepwise hierarchical regression models were conducted.

Within the sTBI group, increased serum UCH-L1 was related to worse immediate memory and delayed memory (R2Δ = .065–.084, ps < .05) performance, while increased GFAP was related to worse perceptual reasoning (R2Δ = .030, p = .036). Unexpectedly, within injured controls, UCH-L1 and GFAP were inversely related to working memory (R2Δ = .052–.071, ps < .05), and NFL was related to executive functioning (R2Δ = .039, p = .021) and MNCD (Exp(B) = 1.119, p = .029).

Results suggest GFAP and UCH-L1 could play a role in predicting poor cognitive outcome following complicated mild and more severe TBI. Further investigation of blood biomarkers and cognition is warranted.

The criteria for objective memory impairment in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are vaguely defined. Aggregating the number of abnormal memory scores (NAMS) is one way to operationalise memory impairment, which we hypothesised would predict progression to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia.

As part of the Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Flagship Study of Ageing, 896 older adults who did not have dementia were administered a psychometric battery including three neuropsychological tests of memory, yielding 10 indices of memory. We calculated the number of memory scores corresponding to z ≤ −1.5 (i.e., NAMS) for each participant. Incident diagnosis of AD dementia was established by consensus of an expert panel after 3 years.

Of the 722 (80.6%) participants who were followed up, 54 (7.5%) developed AD dementia. There was a strong correlation between NAMS and probability of developing AD dementia (r = .91, p = .0003). Each abnormal memory score conferred an additional 9.8% risk of progressing to AD dementia. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for NAMS was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) .81–.93, p < .01]. The odds ratio for NAMS was 1.67 (95% CI 1.40–2.01, p < .01) after correcting for age, sex, education, estimated intelligence quotient, subjective memory complaint, Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score and apolipoprotein E ϵ4 status.

Aggregation of abnormal memory scores may be a useful way of operationalising objective memory impairment, predicting incident AD dementia and providing prognostic stratification for individuals with MCI.