Comparing neuropsychological, typical, and ADNI criteria for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment in Vietnam-era veterans.

IF 2.6 4区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Monica T Ly, Jennifer Adler, Adan F Ton Loy, Emily C Edmonds, Mark W Bondi, Lisa Delano-Wood
{"title":"Comparing neuropsychological, typical, and ADNI criteria for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment in Vietnam-era veterans.","authors":"Monica T Ly, Jennifer Adler, Adan F Ton Loy, Emily C Edmonds, Mark W Bondi, Lisa Delano-Wood","doi":"10.1017/S135561772301144X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Neuropsychological criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) more accurately predict progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and are more strongly associated with AD biomarkers and neuroimaging profiles than ADNI criteria. However, research to date has been conducted in relatively healthy samples with few comorbidities. Given that history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are risk factors for AD and common in Veterans, we compared neuropsychological, typical (Petersen/Winblad), and ADNI criteria for MCI in Vietnam-era Veterans with histories of TBI or PTSD.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>267 Veterans (mean age = 69.8) from the DOD-ADNI study were evaluated for MCI using neuropsychological, typical, and ADNI criteria. Linear regressions adjusting for age and education assessed associations between MCI status and AD biomarker levels (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] <i>p</i>-tau<sub>181</sub>, <i>t</i>-tau, and A<i>β</i><sub>42</sub>) by diagnostic criteria. Logistic regressions adjusting for age and education assessed the effects of TBI severity and PTSD symptom severity simultaneously on MCI classification by each criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Agreement between criteria was poor. Neuropsychological criteria identified more Veterans with MCI than typical or ADNI criteria, and were associated with higher CSF <i>p</i>-tau<sub>181</sub> and <i>t</i>-tau. Typical and ADNI criteria were not associated with CSF biomarkers. PTSD symptom severity predicted MCI diagnosis by neuropsychological and ADNI criteria. History of moderate/severe TBI predicted MCI by typical and ADNI criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MCI diagnosis using sensitive neuropsychological criteria is more strongly associated with AD biomarkers than conventional diagnostic methods. MCI diagnostics in Veterans would benefit from incorporation of comprehensive neuropsychological methods and consideration of the impact of PTSD.</p>","PeriodicalId":49995,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","volume":" ","pages":"439-447"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561772301144X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Neuropsychological criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) more accurately predict progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and are more strongly associated with AD biomarkers and neuroimaging profiles than ADNI criteria. However, research to date has been conducted in relatively healthy samples with few comorbidities. Given that history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are risk factors for AD and common in Veterans, we compared neuropsychological, typical (Petersen/Winblad), and ADNI criteria for MCI in Vietnam-era Veterans with histories of TBI or PTSD.

Method: 267 Veterans (mean age = 69.8) from the DOD-ADNI study were evaluated for MCI using neuropsychological, typical, and ADNI criteria. Linear regressions adjusting for age and education assessed associations between MCI status and AD biomarker levels (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] p-tau181, t-tau, and Aβ42) by diagnostic criteria. Logistic regressions adjusting for age and education assessed the effects of TBI severity and PTSD symptom severity simultaneously on MCI classification by each criteria.

Results: Agreement between criteria was poor. Neuropsychological criteria identified more Veterans with MCI than typical or ADNI criteria, and were associated with higher CSF p-tau181 and t-tau. Typical and ADNI criteria were not associated with CSF biomarkers. PTSD symptom severity predicted MCI diagnosis by neuropsychological and ADNI criteria. History of moderate/severe TBI predicted MCI by typical and ADNI criteria.

Conclusions: MCI diagnosis using sensitive neuropsychological criteria is more strongly associated with AD biomarkers than conventional diagnostic methods. MCI diagnostics in Veterans would benefit from incorporation of comprehensive neuropsychological methods and consideration of the impact of PTSD.

比较越战时期退伍军人轻度认知障碍诊断的神经心理学标准、典型标准和 ADNI 标准。
目的:与 ADNI 标准相比,轻度认知障碍(MCI)的神经心理学标准能更准确地预测阿尔茨海默病(AD)的进展,并且与 AD 生物标志物和神经影像学特征的关联性更强。然而,迄今为止的研究都是在合并症较少的相对健康的样本中进行的。鉴于创伤性脑损伤(TBI)和创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)是导致注意力缺失症的危险因素,而且在退伍军人中很常见,我们比较了神经心理学标准、典型标准(彼得森/温布拉德)和 ADNI 标准对有创伤性脑损伤或创伤后应激障碍病史的越战时期退伍军人的 MCI 检测结果。调整年龄和教育程度的线性回归评估了MCI状态与AD生物标志物水平(脑脊液[CSF] p-tau181、t-tau和Aβ42)之间按诊断标准划分的关联。调整年龄和教育程度的逻辑回归评估了创伤性脑损伤严重程度和创伤后应激障碍症状严重程度同时对MCI分类的影响:结果:各标准之间的一致性较差。神经心理学标准比典型标准或ADNI标准识别出更多的退伍军人患有MCI,并且与较高的CSF p-tau181和t-tau相关。典型标准和ADNI标准与脑脊液生物标志物无关。根据神经心理学和 ADNI 标准,创伤后应激障碍症状的严重程度可预测 MCI 诊断。根据典型标准和ADNI标准,中度/重度创伤性脑损伤史可预测MCI:结论:与传统诊断方法相比,使用敏感的神经心理学标准进行 MCI 诊断与注意力缺失症生物标志物的关联性更强。退伍军人的 MCI 诊断将受益于全面的神经心理学方法和对创伤后应激障碍影响的考虑。
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
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
185
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society is the official journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, an organization of over 4,500 international members from a variety of disciplines. The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society welcomes original, creative, high quality research papers covering all areas of neuropsychology. The focus of articles may be primarily experimental, applied, or clinical. Contributions will broadly reflect the interest of all areas of neuropsychology, including but not limited to: development of cognitive processes, brain-behavior relationships, adult and pediatric neuropsychology, neurobehavioral syndromes (such as aphasia or apraxia), and the interfaces of neuropsychology with related areas such as behavioral neurology, neuropsychiatry, genetics, and cognitive neuroscience. Papers that utilize behavioral, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological measures are appropriate. To assure maximum flexibility and to promote diverse mechanisms of scholarly communication, the following formats are available in addition to a Regular Research Article: Brief Communication is a shorter research article; Rapid Communication is intended for "fast breaking" new work that does not yet justify a full length article and is placed on a fast review track; Case Report is a theoretically important and unique case study; Critical Review and Short Review are thoughtful considerations of topics of importance to neuropsychology and include meta-analyses; Dialogue provides a forum for publishing two distinct positions on controversial issues in a point-counterpoint format; Special Issue and Special Section consist of several articles linked thematically; Letter to the Editor responds to recent articles published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society; and Book Review, which is considered but is no longer solicited.
×
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