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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Callahan, Brandy L., Ramirez, Joel, Berezuk, Courtney, Duchesne, Simon, Black, Sandra E.
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