Comparing the predictive validity of four MCI definitions for incident dementia in demographically diverse community-dwelling individuals: Results from the Einstein Aging Study (EAS).

IF 2.6 4区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Katherine H Chang, Cuiling Wang, Jiyue Qin, Mindy J Katz, Desiree A Byrd, Richard B Lipton, Laura A Rabin
{"title":"Comparing the predictive validity of four MCI definitions for incident dementia in demographically diverse community-dwelling individuals: Results from the Einstein Aging Study (EAS).","authors":"Katherine H Chang, Cuiling Wang, Jiyue Qin, Mindy J Katz, Desiree A Byrd, Richard B Lipton, Laura A Rabin","doi":"10.1017/S1355617724000729","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Research examining (MCI) criteria in diverse and/or health-disparate populations is limited. There is a critical need to investigate the predictive validity for incident dementia of widely used MCI definitions in diverse populations.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Eligible participants were non-Hispanic White or Black Bronx community residents, free of dementia at enrollment, with at least one annual follow-up visit after baseline. Participants completed annual neurological and neuropsychological evaluations to determine cognitive status. Dementia was defined based on DSM-IV criteria using case conferences. Cox proportional hazard models assessed predictive validity for incident dementia of four specific MCI definitions (Petersen, Jak/Bondi, number of impaired tests, Global Clinical Ratings) at baseline, controlling for age, sex, education, and race/ethnicity. Time-dependent sensitivity and specificity at 2-7 years for each definition, and Youden's index were calculated as accuracy measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (N = 1073) ranged in age from 70 to 100 (mean = 78.4 ± 5.3) years at baseline. The sample was 62.5% female, and educational achievement averaged 13.9 ± 3.5 years. Most participants identified as White (70.0%), though Black participants were well-represented (30.0%). In general, MCI definitions differed in sensitivity and specificity for incident dementia. However, there were no significant differences in Youden's index for any definition, across all years of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This work provides an important step toward improving the generalizability of the MCI diagnosis to underrepresented/health-disparate populations. While our findings suggest the studied MCI classifications are comparable, researchers and clinicians may choose to consider one method over another depending on the rationale for evaluation or question of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":49995,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","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/S1355617724000729","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: Research examining (MCI) criteria in diverse and/or health-disparate populations is limited. There is a critical need to investigate the predictive validity for incident dementia of widely used MCI definitions in diverse populations.

Method: Eligible participants were non-Hispanic White or Black Bronx community residents, free of dementia at enrollment, with at least one annual follow-up visit after baseline. Participants completed annual neurological and neuropsychological evaluations to determine cognitive status. Dementia was defined based on DSM-IV criteria using case conferences. Cox proportional hazard models assessed predictive validity for incident dementia of four specific MCI definitions (Petersen, Jak/Bondi, number of impaired tests, Global Clinical Ratings) at baseline, controlling for age, sex, education, and race/ethnicity. Time-dependent sensitivity and specificity at 2-7 years for each definition, and Youden's index were calculated as accuracy measures.

Results: Participants (N = 1073) ranged in age from 70 to 100 (mean = 78.4 ± 5.3) years at baseline. The sample was 62.5% female, and educational achievement averaged 13.9 ± 3.5 years. Most participants identified as White (70.0%), though Black participants were well-represented (30.0%). In general, MCI definitions differed in sensitivity and specificity for incident dementia. However, there were no significant differences in Youden's index for any definition, across all years of follow-up.

Conclusions: This work provides an important step toward improving the generalizability of the MCI diagnosis to underrepresented/health-disparate populations. While our findings suggest the studied MCI classifications are comparable, researchers and clinicians may choose to consider one method over another depending on the rationale for evaluation or question of interest.

比较四种MCI定义对人口统计学上不同的社区居民中痴呆事件的预测有效性:来自爱因斯坦老龄化研究(EAS)的结果。
目的:在不同和/或健康差异人群中检查(MCI)标准的研究是有限的。目前迫切需要研究在不同人群中广泛使用的MCI定义对发生性痴呆的预测有效性。方法:符合条件的参与者是非西班牙裔白人或黑人布朗克斯社区居民,入组时无痴呆,基线后至少每年随访一次。参与者完成了年度神经和神经心理学评估,以确定认知状态。痴呆是根据DSM-IV标准通过病例会议来定义的。Cox比例风险模型在基线上评估了四种特定MCI定义(Petersen, Jak/Bondi,受损测试数,Global Clinical Ratings)对痴呆发生率的预测有效性,控制了年龄、性别、教育程度和种族/民族。每个定义在2-7年的时间依赖性灵敏度和特异性,并计算约登指数作为准确性指标。结果:参与者(N = 1073)年龄在70 ~ 100岁(基线时平均= 78.4±5.3)岁。样本中女性占62.5%,平均受教育年限为13.9±3.5年。大多数参与者被认为是白人(70.0%),尽管黑人参与者也有很好的代表性(30.0%)。一般来说,MCI的定义在偶发性痴呆的敏感性和特异性上存在差异。然而,在所有年份的随访中,任何定义的约登指数都没有显著差异。结论:这项工作为提高MCI诊断在代表性不足/健康差异人群中的普遍性提供了重要的一步。虽然我们的研究结果表明所研究的MCI分类具有可比性,但研究人员和临床医生可能会根据评估的基本原理或感兴趣的问题选择一种方法而不是另一种方法。
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