Optimal Weighting of Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC) Scales to Improve their Performance as Outcome Measures for Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trials.

Xinran Wang, Diane Jacobs, David P Salmon, Howard H Feldman, Steven D Edland
{"title":"Optimal Weighting of Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC) Scales to Improve their Performance as Outcome Measures for Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trials.","authors":"Xinran Wang, Diane Jacobs, David P Salmon, Howard H Feldman, Steven D Edland","doi":"10.6000/1929-6029.2023.12.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cognitive composite scales constructed by combining existing neuropsychometric tests are seeing wide application as endpoints for clinical trials and cohort studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) predementia conditions. Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC) scales are composite scores calculated as the sum of the component test scores weighted by the reciprocal of their standard deviations at the baseline visit. Reciprocal standard deviation is an arbitrary weighting in this context, and may be an inefficient utilization of the data contained in the component measures. Mathematically derived optimal composite weighting is a promising alternative.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sample size projections using standard power calculation formulas were used to describe the relative performance of component measures and their composites when used as endpoints for clinical trials. Power calculations were informed by (n=1,333) amnestic mild cognitive impaired participants in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A composite constructed using PACC reciprocal standard deviation weighting was both less sensitive to change than one of its component measures and less sensitive to change than its optimally weighted counterpart. In standard sample size calculations informed by NACC data, a clinical trial using the PACC weighting would require 38% more subjects than a composite calculated using optimal weighting.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>These findings illustrate how reciprocal standard deviation weighting can result in inefficient cognitive composites, and underscore the importance of component weights to the performance of composite scales. In the future, optimal weighting parameters informed by accumulating clinical trial data may improve the efficiency of clinical trials in AD.</p>","PeriodicalId":73480,"journal":{"name":"International journal of statistics in medical research","volume":" ","pages":"90-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10939003/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of statistics in medical research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-6029.2023.12.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Cognitive composite scales constructed by combining existing neuropsychometric tests are seeing wide application as endpoints for clinical trials and cohort studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) predementia conditions. Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC) scales are composite scores calculated as the sum of the component test scores weighted by the reciprocal of their standard deviations at the baseline visit. Reciprocal standard deviation is an arbitrary weighting in this context, and may be an inefficient utilization of the data contained in the component measures. Mathematically derived optimal composite weighting is a promising alternative.

Methods: Sample size projections using standard power calculation formulas were used to describe the relative performance of component measures and their composites when used as endpoints for clinical trials. Power calculations were informed by (n=1,333) amnestic mild cognitive impaired participants in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set.

Results: A composite constructed using PACC reciprocal standard deviation weighting was both less sensitive to change than one of its component measures and less sensitive to change than its optimally weighted counterpart. In standard sample size calculations informed by NACC data, a clinical trial using the PACC weighting would require 38% more subjects than a composite calculated using optimal weighting.

Discussion: These findings illustrate how reciprocal standard deviation weighting can result in inefficient cognitive composites, and underscore the importance of component weights to the performance of composite scales. In the future, optimal weighting parameters informed by accumulating clinical trial data may improve the efficiency of clinical trials in AD.

临床前阿尔茨海默病认知复合量表(PACC)的最佳权重,以提高其作为阿尔茨海默病临床试验结果指标的表现
引言:通过结合现有的神经计量测试构建的认知复合量表作为阿尔茨海默病(AD)前期条件的临床试验和队列研究的终点得到了广泛应用。临床前阿尔茨海默氏症认知综合量表(PACC)是一种综合得分,计算为成分测试得分的总和,该分数由基线访视时标准差的倒数加权而成。在这种情况下,相互标准差是一种任意的加权,可能是对组成度量中包含的数据的低效利用。数学推导的最优复合加权是一种很有前途的选择。方法:当用作临床试验的终点时,使用标准功率计算公式的样本量投影来描述成分测量及其复合物的相对性能。功率计算由国家阿尔茨海默氏症协调中心(NACC)统一数据集中的(n=1333)健忘症轻度认知障碍参与者提供。结果:使用PACC倒数标准差加权构建的复合物对变化的敏感性低于其组成测量之一,对变化的敏感度低于其最优加权对应物。在NACC数据提供的标准样本量计算中,使用PACC加权的临床试验需要比使用最佳加权计算的复合试验多38%的受试者。讨论:这些发现说明了标准差倒数权重如何导致低效的认知复合,并强调了分量权重对复合量表性能的重要性。未来,通过积累临床试验数据获得的最佳加权参数可能会提高AD临床试验的效率。
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
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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