Cargando…
Predicting Alzheimer's disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers
INTRODUCTION: The definition of “objective cognitive impairment” in current criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) varies considerably between research groups and clinics. This study aims to compare different methods of defining memory impairment to improve prediction models for the developmen...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4634913/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26537709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13195-015-0152-z |
_version_ | 1782399437928136704 |
---|---|
author | Callahan, Brandy L. Ramirez, Joel Berezuk, Courtney Duchesne, Simon Black, Sandra E. |
author_facet | Callahan, Brandy L. Ramirez, Joel Berezuk, Courtney Duchesne, Simon Black, Sandra E. |
author_sort | Callahan, Brandy L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: The definition of “objective cognitive impairment” in current criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) varies considerably between research groups and clinics. This study aims to compare different methods of defining memory impairment to improve prediction models for the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) from baseline to 24 months. METHODS: The sensitivity and specificity of six methods of defining episodic memory impairment (< −1, −1.5 or −2 standard deviations [SD] on one or two memory tests) were compared in 494 non-demented seniors from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative using the area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operating characteristic analysis. The added value of non-memory measures (language and executive function) and biomarkers (hippocampal and white-matter hyperintensity volume, brain parenchymal fraction [BPF], and APOEε4 status) was investigated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Baseline scores < −1 SD on two memory tests predicted AD with 75.91 % accuracy (AUC = 0.80). Only APOE ε4 status further improved prediction (B = 1.10, SE = 0.45, p = .016). A < −1.5 SD cut-off on one test had 66.60 % accuracy (AUC = 0.77). Prediction was further improved using Trails B/A ratio (B = 0.27, SE = 0.13, p = .033), BPF (B = −15.97, SE = 7.58, p = .035), and APOEε4 status (B = 1.08, SE = 0.45, p = .017). A cut-off of < −2 SD on one memory test (AUC = 0.77, SE = 0.03, 95 % CI 0.72-0.82) had 76.52 % accuracy in predicting AD. Trails B/A ratio (B = 0.31, SE = 0.13, p = .017) and APOE ε4 status (B = 1.07, SE = 0.46, p = .019) improved predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Episodic memory impairment in MCI should be defined as scores < −1 SD below normative references on at least two measures. Clinicians or researchers who administer a single test should opt for a more stringent cut-off and collect and analyze whole-brain volume. When feasible, ascertaining APOE ε4 status can further improve prediction. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4634913 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46349132015-11-06 Predicting Alzheimer's disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers Callahan, Brandy L. Ramirez, Joel Berezuk, Courtney Duchesne, Simon Black, Sandra E. Alzheimers Res Ther Research INTRODUCTION: The definition of “objective cognitive impairment” in current criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) varies considerably between research groups and clinics. This study aims to compare different methods of defining memory impairment to improve prediction models for the development of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) from baseline to 24 months. METHODS: The sensitivity and specificity of six methods of defining episodic memory impairment (< −1, −1.5 or −2 standard deviations [SD] on one or two memory tests) were compared in 494 non-demented seniors from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative using the area under the curve (AUC) for receiver operating characteristic analysis. The added value of non-memory measures (language and executive function) and biomarkers (hippocampal and white-matter hyperintensity volume, brain parenchymal fraction [BPF], and APOEε4 status) was investigated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Baseline scores < −1 SD on two memory tests predicted AD with 75.91 % accuracy (AUC = 0.80). Only APOE ε4 status further improved prediction (B = 1.10, SE = 0.45, p = .016). A < −1.5 SD cut-off on one test had 66.60 % accuracy (AUC = 0.77). Prediction was further improved using Trails B/A ratio (B = 0.27, SE = 0.13, p = .033), BPF (B = −15.97, SE = 7.58, p = .035), and APOEε4 status (B = 1.08, SE = 0.45, p = .017). A cut-off of < −2 SD on one memory test (AUC = 0.77, SE = 0.03, 95 % CI 0.72-0.82) had 76.52 % accuracy in predicting AD. Trails B/A ratio (B = 0.31, SE = 0.13, p = .017) and APOE ε4 status (B = 1.07, SE = 0.46, p = .019) improved predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Episodic memory impairment in MCI should be defined as scores < −1 SD below normative references on at least two measures. Clinicians or researchers who administer a single test should opt for a more stringent cut-off and collect and analyze whole-brain volume. When feasible, ascertaining APOE ε4 status can further improve prediction. BioMed Central 2015-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4634913/ /pubmed/26537709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13195-015-0152-z Text en © Callahan et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Callahan, Brandy L. Ramirez, Joel Berezuk, Courtney Duchesne, Simon Black, Sandra E. Predicting Alzheimer's disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers |
title | Predicting Alzheimer's disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers |
title_full | Predicting Alzheimer's disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers |
title_fullStr | Predicting Alzheimer's disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers |
title_full_unstemmed | Predicting Alzheimer's disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers |
title_short | Predicting Alzheimer's disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers |
title_sort | predicting alzheimer's disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4634913/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26537709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13195-015-0152-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT callahanbrandyl predictingalzheimersdiseasedevelopmentacomparisonofcognitivecriteriaandassociatedneuroimagingbiomarkers AT ramirezjoel predictingalzheimersdiseasedevelopmentacomparisonofcognitivecriteriaandassociatedneuroimagingbiomarkers AT berezukcourtney predictingalzheimersdiseasedevelopmentacomparisonofcognitivecriteriaandassociatedneuroimagingbiomarkers AT duchesnesimon predictingalzheimersdiseasedevelopmentacomparisonofcognitivecriteriaandassociatedneuroimagingbiomarkers AT blacksandrae predictingalzheimersdiseasedevelopmentacomparisonofcognitivecriteriaandassociatedneuroimagingbiomarkers AT predictingalzheimersdiseasedevelopmentacomparisonofcognitivecriteriaandassociatedneuroimagingbiomarkers |