ADCOMS 敏感性与基线诊断和病情发展表型的比较

Dave Evenden, A. Prosser, S. Michopoulou, Christopher Kipps
{"title":"ADCOMS 敏感性与基线诊断和病情发展表型的比较","authors":"Dave Evenden, A. Prosser, S. Michopoulou, Christopher Kipps","doi":"10.1002/dad2.12540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract BACKGROUND The Alzheimer's Disease COMposite Score (ADCOMS) is more sensitive in clinical trials than conventional measures when assessing pre‐dementia. This study compares ADCOMS trajectories using clustered progression characteristics to better understand different patterns of decline. METHODS Post‐baseline ADCOMS values were analyzed for sensitivity using mean‐to‐standard deviation ratio (MSDR), partitioned by baseline diagnosis, comparing with the original scales upon which ADCOMS is based. Because baseline diagnosis was not a particularly reliable predictor of progression, individuals were also grouped into similar ADCOMS progression trajectories using clustering methods and the MSDR compared for each progression group. RESULTS ADCOMS demonstrated increased sensitivity for clinically important progression groups. ADCOMS did not show statistically significant sensitivity or clinical relevance for the less‐severe baseline diagnoses and marginal progression groups. CONCLUSIONS This analysis complements and extends previous work validating the sensitivity of ADCOMS. The large data set permitted evaluation–in a novel approach–by the clustered progression group.","PeriodicalId":516929,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer's & Dementia : Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ADCOMS sensitivity versus baseline diagnosis and progression phenotypes\",\"authors\":\"Dave Evenden, A. Prosser, S. Michopoulou, Christopher Kipps\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/dad2.12540\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract BACKGROUND The Alzheimer's Disease COMposite Score (ADCOMS) is more sensitive in clinical trials than conventional measures when assessing pre‐dementia. This study compares ADCOMS trajectories using clustered progression characteristics to better understand different patterns of decline. METHODS Post‐baseline ADCOMS values were analyzed for sensitivity using mean‐to‐standard deviation ratio (MSDR), partitioned by baseline diagnosis, comparing with the original scales upon which ADCOMS is based. Because baseline diagnosis was not a particularly reliable predictor of progression, individuals were also grouped into similar ADCOMS progression trajectories using clustering methods and the MSDR compared for each progression group. RESULTS ADCOMS demonstrated increased sensitivity for clinically important progression groups. ADCOMS did not show statistically significant sensitivity or clinical relevance for the less‐severe baseline diagnoses and marginal progression groups. CONCLUSIONS This analysis complements and extends previous work validating the sensitivity of ADCOMS. The large data set permitted evaluation–in a novel approach–by the clustered progression group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":516929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alzheimer's & Dementia : Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alzheimer's & Dementia : Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12540\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer's & Dementia : Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12540","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 背景 在临床试验中,阿尔茨海默病综合评分(ADCOMS)在评估痴呆前期时比传统方法更敏感。本研究使用聚类进展特征对 ADCOMS 的轨迹进行比较,以更好地了解不同的衰退模式。方法 使用平均标准偏差比(MSDR)对 ADCOMS 基线后的数值进行敏感性分析,按基线诊断进行划分,并与 ADCOMS 所依据的原始量表进行比较。由于基线诊断并不是一个特别可靠的疾病进展预测指标,因此还使用聚类方法将个体分为类似的 ADCOMS 进展轨迹组,并比较每个进展组的 MSDR。结果 ADCOMS 对临床重要进展组的敏感性有所提高。对于较轻的基线诊断和边缘进展组,ADCOMS 未显示出统计学意义上的显著敏感性或临床相关性。结论 该分析补充并扩展了之前验证 ADCOMS 灵敏度的工作。庞大的数据集允许以一种新颖的方法对分组进展组进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ADCOMS sensitivity versus baseline diagnosis and progression phenotypes
Abstract BACKGROUND The Alzheimer's Disease COMposite Score (ADCOMS) is more sensitive in clinical trials than conventional measures when assessing pre‐dementia. This study compares ADCOMS trajectories using clustered progression characteristics to better understand different patterns of decline. METHODS Post‐baseline ADCOMS values were analyzed for sensitivity using mean‐to‐standard deviation ratio (MSDR), partitioned by baseline diagnosis, comparing with the original scales upon which ADCOMS is based. Because baseline diagnosis was not a particularly reliable predictor of progression, individuals were also grouped into similar ADCOMS progression trajectories using clustering methods and the MSDR compared for each progression group. RESULTS ADCOMS demonstrated increased sensitivity for clinically important progression groups. ADCOMS did not show statistically significant sensitivity or clinical relevance for the less‐severe baseline diagnoses and marginal progression groups. CONCLUSIONS This analysis complements and extends previous work validating the sensitivity of ADCOMS. The large data set permitted evaluation–in a novel approach–by the clustered progression group.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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