David W Loring, Najé Simama, Katherine Sanders, Jessica R Saurman, Liping Zhao, James J Lah, Felicia C Goldstein
{"title":"Simplifying Complex Figure scoring: Data from the Emory Healthy Brain Study and initial clinical validation.","authors":"David W Loring, Najé Simama, Katherine Sanders, Jessica R Saurman, Liping Zhao, James J Lah, Felicia C Goldstein","doi":"10.1017/S1355617724000584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To introduce the Emory 10-element Complex Figure (CF) scoring system and recognition task. We evaluated the relationship between Emory CF scoring and traditional Osterrieth CF scoring approach in cognitively healthy volunteers. Additionally, a cohort of patients undergoing deep brain stimulation (DBS) evaluation was assessed to compare the scoring methods in a clinical population.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study included 315 volunteers from the Emory Healthy Brain Study (EHBS) with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores of 24/30 or higher. The clinical group consisted of 84 DBS candidates. Scoring time differences were analyzed in a subset of 48 DBS candidates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>High correlations between scoring methods were present for non-recognition components in both cohorts (<i>EHBS</i>: Copy <i>r</i> = 0.76, Immediate <i>r</i> = 0.86, Delayed <i>r</i> = 0.85, Recognition <i>r</i> = 47; <i>DBS</i>: Copy <i>r</i> = 0.80, Immediate <i>r</i> = 0.84, Delayed Recall <i>r</i> = 0.85, Recognition <i>r</i> = 0.37). Emory CF scoring times were significantly shorter than Osterrieth times across non-recognition conditions (all <i>p</i> < 0.00001, individual Cohen's <i>d</i>: 1.4-2.4), resulting in an average time savings of 57%. DBS patients scored lower than EHBS participants across CF memory measures, with larger effect sizes for Emory CF scoring (Cohen's <i>d</i> range = 1.0-1.2). Emory CF scoring demonstrated better group classification in logistic regression models, improving DBS candidate classification from 16.7% to 32.1% compared to Osterrieth scoring.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Emory CF scoring yields results that are highly correlated with traditional Osterrieth scoring, significantly reduces scoring time burden, and demonstrates greater sensitivity to memory decline in DBS candidates. Its efficiency and sensitivity make Emory CF scoring well-suited for broader implementation in clinical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":49995,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","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/S1355617724000584","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To introduce the Emory 10-element Complex Figure (CF) scoring system and recognition task. We evaluated the relationship between Emory CF scoring and traditional Osterrieth CF scoring approach in cognitively healthy volunteers. Additionally, a cohort of patients undergoing deep brain stimulation (DBS) evaluation was assessed to compare the scoring methods in a clinical population.
Method: The study included 315 volunteers from the Emory Healthy Brain Study (EHBS) with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores of 24/30 or higher. The clinical group consisted of 84 DBS candidates. Scoring time differences were analyzed in a subset of 48 DBS candidates.
Results: High correlations between scoring methods were present for non-recognition components in both cohorts (EHBS: Copy r = 0.76, Immediate r = 0.86, Delayed r = 0.85, Recognition r = 47; DBS: Copy r = 0.80, Immediate r = 0.84, Delayed Recall r = 0.85, Recognition r = 0.37). Emory CF scoring times were significantly shorter than Osterrieth times across non-recognition conditions (all p < 0.00001, individual Cohen's d: 1.4-2.4), resulting in an average time savings of 57%. DBS patients scored lower than EHBS participants across CF memory measures, with larger effect sizes for Emory CF scoring (Cohen's d range = 1.0-1.2). Emory CF scoring demonstrated better group classification in logistic regression models, improving DBS candidate classification from 16.7% to 32.1% compared to Osterrieth scoring.
Conclusions: Emory CF scoring yields results that are highly correlated with traditional Osterrieth scoring, significantly reduces scoring time burden, and demonstrates greater sensitivity to memory decline in DBS candidates. Its efficiency and sensitivity make Emory CF scoring well-suited for broader implementation in clinical research.
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.