Comparison of Mini Mental Score Examination, Quantitative Electroencephalography and Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers in Clinical Practice Examining Dementia

R. Ekedahl
{"title":"Comparison of Mini Mental Score Examination, Quantitative Electroencephalography and Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers in Clinical Practice Examining Dementia","authors":"R. Ekedahl","doi":"10.15344/2455-3867/2019/162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: A new method to measure the cholinergic status with quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) to distinguish healthy from early dementia patients and identify responders of Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor treatment. The objective is to evaluate cognition via Mini Mental Score Examination (MMSE) at baseline and follow-up examination after approximately 2 years for patients with suspected dementia and comparison with the predictive baseline values for (qEEG) and Cerebro-spinal fluid (Csf) biomarkers. If qEEG predicts the cognitive decline best, a noninvasive and inexpensive method is offering the possibility to start Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor treatment early in the dementia disease course. Methods: The average power of four qEEG epochs with eyes closed (E.Cl.) and open eyes (E.O.), and the ratio of E.O. / E.Cl. (Vigilance-index), and average peak frequency of E.Cl. epochs, calculated. The Csf parameters; total-Tau, phospho-Tau, and Amyloid β-42 analyzed. The correlation between the number of pathological MMSE-scores and pathological values of baseline biomarkers evaluated. Results: The Spearman rank correlation between MMSE revealed no linear relation for the examined biomarkers. When comparison of pathological values for MMSE at follow up after approximately 2 years the sensitivity to identify from the baseline values for qEEG and Csf biomarkers, found Vigilanceindex to have the highest sensitivity (1.0) then total-Tau (0.5) and the rest parameters lower, lowest for the combination of Csf parameters (0,09) to predict cognitive decline. The specificity for the baseline Vigilance-index was (0.87) and for total-Tau (0.39) and lower for the other parameters at the follow-up examination. Conclusion: Vigilance-index best reflects the cognitive decline after two years in early dementia disease, by measuring cholinergic deficit, compared to Csf biomarkers to measure total-Tau, phospho-Tau, and Amyloid β-42.","PeriodicalId":270326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychology & Behavior Analysis","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychology & Behavior Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15344/2455-3867/2019/162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: A new method to measure the cholinergic status with quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) to distinguish healthy from early dementia patients and identify responders of Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor treatment. The objective is to evaluate cognition via Mini Mental Score Examination (MMSE) at baseline and follow-up examination after approximately 2 years for patients with suspected dementia and comparison with the predictive baseline values for (qEEG) and Cerebro-spinal fluid (Csf) biomarkers. If qEEG predicts the cognitive decline best, a noninvasive and inexpensive method is offering the possibility to start Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor treatment early in the dementia disease course. Methods: The average power of four qEEG epochs with eyes closed (E.Cl.) and open eyes (E.O.), and the ratio of E.O. / E.Cl. (Vigilance-index), and average peak frequency of E.Cl. epochs, calculated. The Csf parameters; total-Tau, phospho-Tau, and Amyloid β-42 analyzed. The correlation between the number of pathological MMSE-scores and pathological values of baseline biomarkers evaluated. Results: The Spearman rank correlation between MMSE revealed no linear relation for the examined biomarkers. When comparison of pathological values for MMSE at follow up after approximately 2 years the sensitivity to identify from the baseline values for qEEG and Csf biomarkers, found Vigilanceindex to have the highest sensitivity (1.0) then total-Tau (0.5) and the rest parameters lower, lowest for the combination of Csf parameters (0,09) to predict cognitive decline. The specificity for the baseline Vigilance-index was (0.87) and for total-Tau (0.39) and lower for the other parameters at the follow-up examination. Conclusion: Vigilance-index best reflects the cognitive decline after two years in early dementia disease, by measuring cholinergic deficit, compared to Csf biomarkers to measure total-Tau, phospho-Tau, and Amyloid β-42.
迷你精神评分检查、定量脑电图和脑脊液生物标志物在痴呆临床诊断中的比较
背景:采用定量脑电图(qEEG)测量脑内胆碱能状态的新方法,以区分健康和早期痴呆患者,并确定对乙酰胆碱酯酶抑制剂治疗的应答者。目的是通过基线时的迷你精神评分检查(MMSE)和大约2年后的随访检查评估疑似痴呆患者的认知能力,并与qEEG和脑脊液(Csf)生物标志物的预测基线值进行比较。如果qEEG能最好地预测认知能力下降,那么一种无创且廉价的方法提供了在痴呆病程早期开始乙酰胆碱酯酶抑制剂治疗的可能性。方法:观察闭眼(E.Cl)和睁眼(E.O.)四次qEEG的平均功率及E.O. / E.Cl的比值。(警戒指数)和E.Cl的平均峰值频率。时代,计算。Csf参数;分析total-Tau, phospho-Tau和Amyloid β-42。评估病理mmse评分数量与基线生物标志物病理值之间的相关性。结果:MMSE之间的Spearman秩相关显示所检查的生物标志物没有线性关系。在随访约2年后比较MMSE的病理值时,从基线值识别qEEG和Csf生物标志物的敏感性发现,Vigilanceindex具有最高的敏感性(1.0),然后是total-Tau(0.5),其余参数较低,Csf参数组合最低(0,09)预测认知能力下降。基线警戒指数(Vigilance-index)的特异性为0.87,总tau蛋白(total-Tau)的特异性为0.39,随访时其他参数的特异性较低。结论:与脑脊液生物标志物相比,警惕性指数通过测量胆碱能缺陷最能反映早期痴呆患者两年后的认知能力下降,以测量总tau、磷酸化tau和淀粉样蛋白β-42。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信