The utility of global versus domain-specific neuropsychological test score dispersion as markers of cognitive impairment.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Clinical Neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-12 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2025.2577149
Hudaisa Fatima, Jeff Schaffert, Anne R Carlew, Vishal J Thakkar, Laura Lacritz, Heidi Rossetti, C Munro Cullum
{"title":"The utility of global versus domain-specific neuropsychological test score dispersion as markers of cognitive impairment.","authors":"Hudaisa Fatima, Jeff Schaffert, Anne R Carlew, Vishal J Thakkar, Laura Lacritz, Heidi Rossetti, C Munro Cullum","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2025.2577149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Cognitive dispersion (CD) or neuropsychological test score variability has been associated with more rapid cognitive decline, and the development of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). The predictive utility of global (cross-domain) versus domain-specific dispersion remains understudied. We examined whether baseline global versus domain-specific CD better predicted conversion to MCI or dementia over time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>1,595 participants (Mage = 71.41, SD = 7.73) from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) dataset were followed for ≥4 visits. Baseline CD was calculated using standardized neuropsychological test scores, with global dispersion defined as the intraindividual standard deviation (ISD) across 10 NACC scores. Domain-specific dispersion was calculated by constructing composites with ISD across tests within three domains (Memory, Language, and Executive functioning/attention/processing speed [EFAS]). Multinomial logistic regression model fit statistics were compared across four dispersion models (global, EFAS, language, memory) in predicting progression to MCI and dementia in (1) the full non-dementia sample and (2) those cognitively normal at baseline only, controlling for demographics, APOE4 status, and MMSE. Model fit was evaluated using LRT and AIC. Follow-up hierarchical regressions assessed the incremental value of the most successful dispersion metric beyond mean EFAS and memory composite scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the full sample, 25% were considered to have MCI at follow-up, and 20% developed dementia, whereas among those considered cognitively normal at baseline (<i>n</i> = 1166), 17.6% progressed to MCI, and 11% progressed to dementia in their follow-up. In the overall sample, global dispersion was the only significant predictor of dementia diagnosis (AIC = 2504.27, <i>p</i> < .001) with moderate classification accuracy: 62.6%. Adding global dispersion to a model with covariates + mean EFAS and memory composite performances did not improve prediction (Δχ<sup>2</sup> = 1.803, <i>p</i> = .179). Among cognitively normal at baseline, only EFAS dispersion predicted dementia conversion, and classification accuracy remained moderate, though it was increased (71.7%). Adding EFAS dispersion to a model with covariates and mean composite performance also did not improve prediction (Δχ<sup>2</sup> = .614, <i>p</i> = .433). None of the dispersion metrics predicted conversion to MCI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dispersion (global in a non-dementia sample or domain-specific [EFAS] among cognitively asymptomatic individuals) may show limited predictive value for dementia conversion, but it does not exceed traditional mean-based cognitive performance, highlighting its complementary, rather than superior, role in diagnostic prediction.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":" ","pages":"2058-2082"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2025.2577149","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Cognitive dispersion (CD) or neuropsychological test score variability has been associated with more rapid cognitive decline, and the development of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). The predictive utility of global (cross-domain) versus domain-specific dispersion remains understudied. We examined whether baseline global versus domain-specific CD better predicted conversion to MCI or dementia over time.

Methods: 1,595 participants (Mage = 71.41, SD = 7.73) from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) dataset were followed for ≥4 visits. Baseline CD was calculated using standardized neuropsychological test scores, with global dispersion defined as the intraindividual standard deviation (ISD) across 10 NACC scores. Domain-specific dispersion was calculated by constructing composites with ISD across tests within three domains (Memory, Language, and Executive functioning/attention/processing speed [EFAS]). Multinomial logistic regression model fit statistics were compared across four dispersion models (global, EFAS, language, memory) in predicting progression to MCI and dementia in (1) the full non-dementia sample and (2) those cognitively normal at baseline only, controlling for demographics, APOE4 status, and MMSE. Model fit was evaluated using LRT and AIC. Follow-up hierarchical regressions assessed the incremental value of the most successful dispersion metric beyond mean EFAS and memory composite scores.

Results: In the full sample, 25% were considered to have MCI at follow-up, and 20% developed dementia, whereas among those considered cognitively normal at baseline (n = 1166), 17.6% progressed to MCI, and 11% progressed to dementia in their follow-up. In the overall sample, global dispersion was the only significant predictor of dementia diagnosis (AIC = 2504.27, p < .001) with moderate classification accuracy: 62.6%. Adding global dispersion to a model with covariates + mean EFAS and memory composite performances did not improve prediction (Δχ2 = 1.803, p = .179). Among cognitively normal at baseline, only EFAS dispersion predicted dementia conversion, and classification accuracy remained moderate, though it was increased (71.7%). Adding EFAS dispersion to a model with covariates and mean composite performance also did not improve prediction (Δχ2 = .614, p = .433). None of the dispersion metrics predicted conversion to MCI.

Conclusions: Dispersion (global in a non-dementia sample or domain-specific [EFAS] among cognitively asymptomatic individuals) may show limited predictive value for dementia conversion, but it does not exceed traditional mean-based cognitive performance, highlighting its complementary, rather than superior, role in diagnostic prediction.

整体与领域特异性神经心理测试分数分散作为认知障碍标记的效用。
目的:认知离散度(CD)或神经心理测试分数变异性与认知能力快速下降、轻度认知障碍(MCI)和阿尔茨海默病(AD)的发展有关。全球(跨领域)与特定领域分散的预测效用仍未得到充分研究。我们研究了基线全局CD与区域特异性CD是否能更好地预测随着时间的推移向轻度认知障碍或痴呆的转化。方法:来自国家阿尔茨海默病协调中心(NACC)数据集的1,595名参与者(Mage = 71.41, SD = 7.73)随访≥4次。基线CD使用标准化神经心理测试分数计算,整体离散度定义为10个NACC分数的个体内标准偏差(ISD)。通过在三个领域(记忆、语言和执行功能/注意力/处理速度[EFAS])的测试中构建具有ISD的组合来计算特定领域的离散度。在控制人口统计学、APOE4状态和MMSE的情况下,对四种离散模型(全局、EFAS、语言、记忆)预测MCI和痴呆进展的多项逻辑回归模型拟合统计进行比较(1)完整的非痴呆样本和(2)仅在基线时认知正常的样本。采用LRT和AIC评价模型拟合。随访层次回归评估了最成功的分散度量超出EFAS平均值和记忆综合得分的增量值。结果:在整个样本中,25%的人在随访时被认为患有轻度认知障碍,20%的人发展为痴呆症,而在基线时被认为认知正常的人中(n = 1166), 17.6%的人在随访中发展为轻度认知障碍,11%的人发展为痴呆症。在整个样本中,总体离散度是痴呆诊断的唯一显著预测因子(AIC = 2504.27, p < .001),分类准确率中等:62.6%。在协变量+平均EFAS和记忆复合性能的模型中加入全局离散度并没有改善预测(Δχ2 = 1.803, p = 0.179)。在基线认知正常的人群中,只有EFAS离散度预测痴呆转化,分类准确率保持中等,尽管有所提高(71.7%)。将EFAS离散度添加到具有协变量和平均复合性能的模型中也不能改善预测(Δχ2 = 0.614, p = 0.433)。没有任何色散指标预测到MCI的转变。结论:离散度(非痴呆样本中的全局或认知无症状个体中的域特异性[EFAS])可能对痴呆转换的预测价值有限,但它并不超过传统的基于均值的认知表现,突出了其在诊断预测中的补充作用,而不是优越作用。
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
Clinical Neuropsychologist
Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.80%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is considered.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书