M. Manjavong, A. Diaz, M. T. Ashford, A. Aaronson, M. J. Miller, J. M. Kang, S. Mackin, R. Tank, B. Landavazo, D. Truran, S. T. Farias, M. Weiner, Rachel L. Nosheny
{"title":"简易版日常认知量表 (ECog-12) 在检测认知障碍方面的表现","authors":"M. Manjavong, A. Diaz, M. T. Ashford, A. Aaronson, M. J. Miller, J. M. Kang, S. Mackin, R. Tank, B. Landavazo, D. Truran, S. T. Farias, M. Weiner, Rachel L. Nosheny","doi":"10.14283/jpad.2024.109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>The Everyday Cognition (ECog) 12-item scale, a functional decline measurement, can distinguish dementia from cognitively unimpaired (CU). Limited data compare ECog-12 performance by raters (self vs. informant) and scoring systems (average numeric vs. categorical grouping) to differentiate cognitive statuses.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>To evaluate the performance of ECog-12 in differentiation cognitive statuses.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Design</h3><p>A cross-sectional diagnostic test study.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Setting and Participants</h3><p>Data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study are analyzed. Participants were aged 55–90 years old divided into subgroups based on diagnostic criteria.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Measurements</h3><p>We evaluated ECog-12 performance across different diagnostic groups, such as CU vs cognitive impairment (CI; mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia), and the association between ECog-12 and CI. This procedure was repeated for self- and partner (informant)-reports. Additionally, types of ECog scores were also assessed, where an average ECog score was calculated (continuous numeric) as well as a categorical grouping (“any occasional declined” or “any consistently declined”) based on item-level responses to ECog questions.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>ECog-12 cut-off scores of 1.36 (self-reported) and 1.45 (partner-reported) distinguish CU from CI with AUC 0.7 and 0.78, respectively. Adding a memory-concern question improved self-reported-ECog AUC to 0.79. Self- and partner-reported “consistently-declined” ECog-12 categorical grouping provided AUC 0.69 and 0.78. The study partner reported ECog-12 showed a greater association with CI than self-reported, with odds ratios of 35.45 and 8.79, respectively.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Study partner-reported ECog scores performed better than self-reported ECog-12 in differentiating cognitive statuses, and a higher study partner reported ECog score was a higher prognostic risk for CI. A memory concern question could enhance self-reported ECog-12 performance. This further emphasizes the need to obtain data from study partners for research and clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":22711,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of a Short Version of the Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog-12) to Detect Cognitive Impairment\",\"authors\":\"M. Manjavong, A. Diaz, M. T. Ashford, A. Aaronson, M. J. Miller, J. M. Kang, S. Mackin, R. Tank, B. Landavazo, D. Truran, S. T. Farias, M. Weiner, Rachel L. Nosheny\",\"doi\":\"10.14283/jpad.2024.109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background</h3><p>The Everyday Cognition (ECog) 12-item scale, a functional decline measurement, can distinguish dementia from cognitively unimpaired (CU). Limited data compare ECog-12 performance by raters (self vs. informant) and scoring systems (average numeric vs. categorical grouping) to differentiate cognitive statuses.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objectives</h3><p>To evaluate the performance of ECog-12 in differentiation cognitive statuses.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Design</h3><p>A cross-sectional diagnostic test study.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Setting and Participants</h3><p>Data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study are analyzed. Participants were aged 55–90 years old divided into subgroups based on diagnostic criteria.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Measurements</h3><p>We evaluated ECog-12 performance across different diagnostic groups, such as CU vs cognitive impairment (CI; mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia), and the association between ECog-12 and CI. This procedure was repeated for self- and partner (informant)-reports. Additionally, types of ECog scores were also assessed, where an average ECog score was calculated (continuous numeric) as well as a categorical grouping (“any occasional declined” or “any consistently declined”) based on item-level responses to ECog questions.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>ECog-12 cut-off scores of 1.36 (self-reported) and 1.45 (partner-reported) distinguish CU from CI with AUC 0.7 and 0.78, respectively. Adding a memory-concern question improved self-reported-ECog AUC to 0.79. Self- and partner-reported “consistently-declined” ECog-12 categorical grouping provided AUC 0.69 and 0.78. The study partner reported ECog-12 showed a greater association with CI than self-reported, with odds ratios of 35.45 and 8.79, respectively.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>Study partner-reported ECog scores performed better than self-reported ECog-12 in differentiating cognitive statuses, and a higher study partner reported ECog score was a higher prognostic risk for CI. A memory concern question could enhance self-reported ECog-12 performance. This further emphasizes the need to obtain data from study partners for research and clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22711,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2024.109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2024.109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Performance of a Short Version of the Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog-12) to Detect Cognitive Impairment
Background
The Everyday Cognition (ECog) 12-item scale, a functional decline measurement, can distinguish dementia from cognitively unimpaired (CU). Limited data compare ECog-12 performance by raters (self vs. informant) and scoring systems (average numeric vs. categorical grouping) to differentiate cognitive statuses.
Objectives
To evaluate the performance of ECog-12 in differentiation cognitive statuses.
Design
A cross-sectional diagnostic test study.
Setting and Participants
Data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study are analyzed. Participants were aged 55–90 years old divided into subgroups based on diagnostic criteria.
Measurements
We evaluated ECog-12 performance across different diagnostic groups, such as CU vs cognitive impairment (CI; mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia), and the association between ECog-12 and CI. This procedure was repeated for self- and partner (informant)-reports. Additionally, types of ECog scores were also assessed, where an average ECog score was calculated (continuous numeric) as well as a categorical grouping (“any occasional declined” or “any consistently declined”) based on item-level responses to ECog questions.
Results
ECog-12 cut-off scores of 1.36 (self-reported) and 1.45 (partner-reported) distinguish CU from CI with AUC 0.7 and 0.78, respectively. Adding a memory-concern question improved self-reported-ECog AUC to 0.79. Self- and partner-reported “consistently-declined” ECog-12 categorical grouping provided AUC 0.69 and 0.78. The study partner reported ECog-12 showed a greater association with CI than self-reported, with odds ratios of 35.45 and 8.79, respectively.
Conclusion
Study partner-reported ECog scores performed better than self-reported ECog-12 in differentiating cognitive statuses, and a higher study partner reported ECog score was a higher prognostic risk for CI. A memory concern question could enhance self-reported ECog-12 performance. This further emphasizes the need to obtain data from study partners for research and clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
The JPAD Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’Disease will publish reviews, original research articles and short reports to improve our knowledge in the field of Alzheimer prevention including: neurosciences, biomarkers, imaging, epidemiology, public health, physical cognitive exercise, nutrition, risk and protective factors, drug development, trials design, and heath economic outcomes.JPAD will publish also the meeting abstracts from Clinical Trial on Alzheimer Disease (CTAD) and will be distributed both in paper and online version worldwide.We hope that JPAD with your contribution will play a role in the development of Alzheimer prevention.