Utility of the INECO Frontal Screening and the Frontal Assessment Battery in detecting executive dysfunction in early-onset cognitive impairment and dementia.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-06 DOI:10.1017/S1355617723000619
Anna-Leena Heikkinen, Veera Tikkanen, Tuomo Hänninen, Christer Hublin, Anne M Koivisto, Toni T Saari, Anne M Remes, Teemu I Paajanen, Johanna Krüger
{"title":"Utility of the INECO Frontal Screening and the Frontal Assessment Battery in detecting executive dysfunction in early-onset cognitive impairment and dementia.","authors":"Anna-Leena Heikkinen, Veera Tikkanen, Tuomo Hänninen, Christer Hublin, Anne M Koivisto, Toni T Saari, Anne M Remes, Teemu I Paajanen, Johanna Krüger","doi":"10.1017/S1355617723000619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) and the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) are executive dysfunction (ED) screening tools that can distinguish patients with neurodegenerative disorders from healthy controls and, to some extent, between dementia subtypes. This paper aims to examine the suitability of these tests in assessing early-onset cognitive impairment and dementia patients.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In a memory clinic patient cohort (age mean = 57.4 years) with symptom onset at ≤65 years, we analyzed the IFS and the FAB results of four groups: early-onset dementia (EOD, <i>n</i> = 49), mild cognitive impairment due to neurological causes (MCI-n, <i>n</i> = 34), MCI due to other causes such as depression (MCI-o, <i>n</i> = 99) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD, <i>n</i> = 14). Data were gathered at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. We also studied the tests' accuracy in distinguishing EOD from SCD patients and ED patients from those with intact executive functioning. Correlations with neuropsychological measures were also studied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The EOD group had significantly (<i>p</i> < .05) lower IFS and FAB total scores than the MCI-o and SCD groups. Compared with the FAB, the IFS showed more statistically significant (<i>p</i> < .05) differences between diagnostic groups, greater accuracy (IFS AUC = .80, FAB AUC = .75, <i>p</i> = .036) in detecting ED and marginally stronger correlations with neuropsychological measures. We found no statistically significant differences in the EOD group scores from baseline up to 6- or 12-months follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While both tests can detect EOD among memory clinic patients, the IFS may be more reliable in detecting ED than the FAB.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617723000619","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) and the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) are executive dysfunction (ED) screening tools that can distinguish patients with neurodegenerative disorders from healthy controls and, to some extent, between dementia subtypes. This paper aims to examine the suitability of these tests in assessing early-onset cognitive impairment and dementia patients.

Method: In a memory clinic patient cohort (age mean = 57.4 years) with symptom onset at ≤65 years, we analyzed the IFS and the FAB results of four groups: early-onset dementia (EOD, n = 49), mild cognitive impairment due to neurological causes (MCI-n, n = 34), MCI due to other causes such as depression (MCI-o, n = 99) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD, n = 14). Data were gathered at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. We also studied the tests' accuracy in distinguishing EOD from SCD patients and ED patients from those with intact executive functioning. Correlations with neuropsychological measures were also studied.

Results: The EOD group had significantly (p < .05) lower IFS and FAB total scores than the MCI-o and SCD groups. Compared with the FAB, the IFS showed more statistically significant (p < .05) differences between diagnostic groups, greater accuracy (IFS AUC = .80, FAB AUC = .75, p = .036) in detecting ED and marginally stronger correlations with neuropsychological measures. We found no statistically significant differences in the EOD group scores from baseline up to 6- or 12-months follow-up.

Conclusions: While both tests can detect EOD among memory clinic patients, the IFS may be more reliable in detecting ED than the FAB.

INECO额叶筛查和额叶评估组在检测早发性认知障碍和痴呆症执行功能障碍中的作用。
目的:INECO额叶筛查(IFS)和额叶评估组(FAB)是执行功能障碍(ED)筛查工具,可以区分神经退行性疾病患者和健康对照组,并在一定程度上区分痴呆亚型。本文旨在检验这些测试在评估早发性认知障碍和痴呆患者中的适用性。方法:在一个症状发作≤65岁的记忆临床患者队列(平均年龄=57.4岁)中,我们分析了四组的IFS和FAB结果:早发性痴呆(EOD,n=49)、神经原因引起的轻度认知障碍(MCI-n,n=34)、其他原因如抑郁引起的MCI(MCI-o,n=99)和主观认知能力下降(SCD,n=14)。在基线、6个月和12个月时收集数据。我们还研究了这些测试在区分EOD与SCD患者以及ED患者与执行功能完整患者方面的准确性。还研究了与神经心理学测量的相关性。结果:EOD组的IFS和FAB总分显著低于MCI-o和SCD组(p<0.05)。与FAB相比,IFS在诊断组之间显示出更具统计学意义(p<0.05)的差异,在检测ED方面具有更高的准确性(IFS AUC=0.80,FAB AUC=0.75,p=.036),并且与神经心理学测量的相关性略强。我们发现,从基线到6个月或12个月的随访,EOD组得分没有统计学上的显著差异。结论:虽然这两种测试都可以检测记忆临床患者的EOD,但IFS在检测ED方面可能比FAB更可靠。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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