Sensitivity of memory subtests and learning slopes from the ADAS-Cog to distinguish along the continuum of the NIA-AA Research Framework for Alzheimer's Disease.

IF 1.6 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-08 DOI:10.1080/13825585.2022.2120957
Dustin B Hammers, Ralitsa V Kostadinova, Robert J Spencer, Jean N Ikanga, Frederick W Unverzagt, Shannon L Risacher, Liana G Apostolova
{"title":"Sensitivity of memory subtests and learning slopes from the ADAS-Cog to distinguish along the continuum of the NIA-AA Research Framework for Alzheimer's Disease.","authors":"Dustin B Hammers, Ralitsa V Kostadinova, Robert J Spencer, Jean N Ikanga, Frederick W Unverzagt, Shannon L Risacher, Liana G Apostolova","doi":"10.1080/13825585.2022.2120957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite extensive use of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) in AD research, exploration of memory subtests or process scores from the measure has been limited. The current study sought to establish validity for the ADAS-Cog Word Recall Immediate and Delayed Memory subtests and learning slope scores by showing that they are sensitive to AD biomarker status. Word Recall subtest and learning slope scores were calculated for 441 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (aged 55 to 90). All participants were categorized using the NIA-AA Research Framework - based on PET-imaging of β-amyloid (A) and tau (T) deposition - as Normal AD Biomarkers (A-T-), Alzheimer's Pathologic Change (A + T-), or Alzheimer's disease (A + T+). Memory subtest and learning slope performances were compared between biomarker status groups, and with regard to how well they discriminated samples with (A + T+) and without (A-T-) biomarkers. Lower Word Recall memory subtest scores - and scores for a particular learning slope calculation, the Learning Ratio - were observed for the AD (A + T+) group than the other biomarker groups. Memory subtest and Learning Ratio scores further displayed fair to good receiver operator characteristics when differentiating those with and without AD biomarkers. When comparing across learning slopes, the Learning Ratio metric consistently outperformed others. ADAS-Cog memory subtests and the Learning Ratio score are sensitive to AD biomarker status along the continuum of the NIA-AA Research Framework, and the results offer criterion validity for use of these subtests and process scores as unique markers of memory capacity.</p>","PeriodicalId":7532,"journal":{"name":"Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":"866-884"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9992455/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2022.2120957","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite extensive use of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) in AD research, exploration of memory subtests or process scores from the measure has been limited. The current study sought to establish validity for the ADAS-Cog Word Recall Immediate and Delayed Memory subtests and learning slope scores by showing that they are sensitive to AD biomarker status. Word Recall subtest and learning slope scores were calculated for 441 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (aged 55 to 90). All participants were categorized using the NIA-AA Research Framework - based on PET-imaging of β-amyloid (A) and tau (T) deposition - as Normal AD Biomarkers (A-T-), Alzheimer's Pathologic Change (A + T-), or Alzheimer's disease (A + T+). Memory subtest and learning slope performances were compared between biomarker status groups, and with regard to how well they discriminated samples with (A + T+) and without (A-T-) biomarkers. Lower Word Recall memory subtest scores - and scores for a particular learning slope calculation, the Learning Ratio - were observed for the AD (A + T+) group than the other biomarker groups. Memory subtest and Learning Ratio scores further displayed fair to good receiver operator characteristics when differentiating those with and without AD biomarkers. When comparing across learning slopes, the Learning Ratio metric consistently outperformed others. ADAS-Cog memory subtests and the Learning Ratio score are sensitive to AD biomarker status along the continuum of the NIA-AA Research Framework, and the results offer criterion validity for use of these subtests and process scores as unique markers of memory capacity.

从ADAS-Cog的记忆子测试和学习斜率的敏感性来区分NIA-AA研究框架对阿尔茨海默病的连续性。
尽管阿尔茨海默病(AD)评估量表-认知子量表(ADAS-Cog)在AD研究中广泛使用,但对记忆子测试或过程分数的探索仍然有限。本研究试图通过显示ADAS-Cog单词回忆即时和延迟记忆子测试以及学习斜率分数对AD生物标志物状态的敏感性来建立其有效性。计算了来自阿尔茨海默病神经影像学倡议的441名参与者(55至90岁)的单词回忆子测试和学习斜率分数。所有参与者使用NIA-AA研究框架-基于β-淀粉样蛋白(A)和tau (T)沉积的pet成像-分类为正常AD生物标志物(A-T-),阿尔茨海默病病理改变(A + T-)或阿尔茨海默病(A + T+)。比较不同生物标记物状态组的记忆子测试和学习斜率的表现,以及他们区分有(A + T+)和没有(A-T-)生物标记物的样本的能力。与其他生物标志物组相比,AD (a + T+)组的单词回忆记忆子测试分数和特定学习斜率计算的分数(学习率)较低。在区分有和没有AD生物标志物的患者时,记忆子测试和学习率得分进一步显示出公平到良好的接收者操作员特征。当比较学习斜率时,学习比率指标始终优于其他指标。在NIA-AA研究框架的连续体中,ADAS-Cog记忆子测试和学习率分数对AD生物标志物状态敏感,结果为使用这些子测试和过程分数作为记忆容量的独特标记提供了标准有效性。
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
4.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The purposes of Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition are to (a) publish research on both the normal and dysfunctional aspects of cognitive development in adulthood and aging, and (b) promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings between the fields of cognitive gerontology and neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of the journal is to publish original empirical research. Occasionally, theoretical or methodological papers, critical reviews of a content area, or theoretically relevant case studies will also be published.
×
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