修正线索回忆测验:唐氏综合症成人测验版本与项目回忆的纵向分析。

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Emily K Schworer, Benjamin L Handen, Sharon Krinsky-McHale, Christy L Hom, Isabel C H Clare, Jordan P Harp, Margaret B Pulsifer, Mark Mapstone, Elizabeth Head, Bradley T Christian, Sigan L Hartley
{"title":"修正线索回忆测验:唐氏综合症成人测验版本与项目回忆的纵向分析。","authors":"Emily K Schworer, Benjamin L Handen, Sharon Krinsky-McHale, Christy L Hom, Isabel C H Clare, Jordan P Harp, Margaret B Pulsifer, Mark Mapstone, Elizabeth Head, Bradley T Christian, Sigan L Hartley","doi":"10.1111/jir.13237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adults with Down syndrome (DS) have an elevated risk and early age of onset for Alzheimer's disease (AD). To support upcoming clinical AD trials, there is a critical need to establish cognitive outcome measures that can be used to capture intervention effects. One measure that has successfully been used to detect AD-related cognitive decline in the DS population is a measure of episodic memory, the modified Cued Recall Test (mCRT). Demonstrated utility of the mCRT warrants further investigation into comparisons between the A and B versions, free versus cued recall and changes in performance over time to better understand sensitivity for tracking memory decline over time based on age and AD clinical status.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants were 272 adults with DS aged 25-81 (mean age = 43.12 years, SD = 9.79). Study procedures were completed at three cycles of data collection: baseline, 16-month follow-up and 32-month follow-up. Participants were enrolled in the Alzheimer Biomarker Consortium-Down Syndrome longitudinal study and completed the mCRT as part of a multiday evaluation. Comparisons were made between the A and B versions of the mCRT in recall and intrusion scores. Participants' ratio of free relative to cued recall was also examined at baseline and longitudinally. Participant performance was compared by age group, clinical AD status (cognitively stable [CS], mild cognitive impairment [MCI] or AD dementia) and premorbid level of intellectual disability (ID).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Version differences were identified, with the most salient differences in the moderate and severe/profound ID groups. The mCRT free recall declined with age in CS participants. Free and cued recall scores were lower in those with MCI and AD dementia, with the exception of the mild ID MCI group, whose cued recall scores were not significantly different from the CS group. Decline across 32 months (mCRT total score decline of 1.29 points/year) was observed for CS participants beginning at ≥ 50 years old, with more pronounced declines in adults with DS with an MCI or AD dementia diagnosis (3.36 and 4.20 points/year, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Characterising test version differences and participant free versus cued recall performance on the mCRT is important for understanding performance under testing conditions and to maximise the sensitivity of clinical interventions to capture meaningful effects. Our findings suggest that clinical AD trials for DS should be cautious about using both versions of the mCRT. Examining the profile of free relative to cued recall may enhance sensitivity for detecting treatment benefits for adults with DS across the range of premorbid ID levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modified Cued Recall Test: Longitudinal Analysis of Test Versions and Item Recall in Adults With Down Syndrome.\",\"authors\":\"Emily K Schworer, Benjamin L Handen, Sharon Krinsky-McHale, Christy L Hom, Isabel C H Clare, Jordan P Harp, Margaret B Pulsifer, Mark Mapstone, Elizabeth Head, Bradley T Christian, Sigan L Hartley\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jir.13237\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adults with Down syndrome (DS) have an elevated risk and early age of onset for Alzheimer's disease (AD). To support upcoming clinical AD trials, there is a critical need to establish cognitive outcome measures that can be used to capture intervention effects. One measure that has successfully been used to detect AD-related cognitive decline in the DS population is a measure of episodic memory, the modified Cued Recall Test (mCRT). Demonstrated utility of the mCRT warrants further investigation into comparisons between the A and B versions, free versus cued recall and changes in performance over time to better understand sensitivity for tracking memory decline over time based on age and AD clinical status.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants were 272 adults with DS aged 25-81 (mean age = 43.12 years, SD = 9.79). Study procedures were completed at three cycles of data collection: baseline, 16-month follow-up and 32-month follow-up. Participants were enrolled in the Alzheimer Biomarker Consortium-Down Syndrome longitudinal study and completed the mCRT as part of a multiday evaluation. Comparisons were made between the A and B versions of the mCRT in recall and intrusion scores. Participants' ratio of free relative to cued recall was also examined at baseline and longitudinally. Participant performance was compared by age group, clinical AD status (cognitively stable [CS], mild cognitive impairment [MCI] or AD dementia) and premorbid level of intellectual disability (ID).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Version differences were identified, with the most salient differences in the moderate and severe/profound ID groups. The mCRT free recall declined with age in CS participants. Free and cued recall scores were lower in those with MCI and AD dementia, with the exception of the mild ID MCI group, whose cued recall scores were not significantly different from the CS group. Decline across 32 months (mCRT total score decline of 1.29 points/year) was observed for CS participants beginning at ≥ 50 years old, with more pronounced declines in adults with DS with an MCI or AD dementia diagnosis (3.36 and 4.20 points/year, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Characterising test version differences and participant free versus cued recall performance on the mCRT is important for understanding performance under testing conditions and to maximise the sensitivity of clinical interventions to capture meaningful effects. Our findings suggest that clinical AD trials for DS should be cautious about using both versions of the mCRT. Examining the profile of free relative to cued recall may enhance sensitivity for detecting treatment benefits for adults with DS across the range of premorbid ID levels.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.13237\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.13237","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:患有唐氏综合征(DS)的成人患阿尔茨海默病(AD)的风险升高且发病年龄早。为了支持即将进行的阿尔茨海默病临床试验,迫切需要建立可用于捕捉干预效果的认知结果测量方法。一种被成功用于检测ad相关认知衰退的方法是对情景记忆的测量,即改进的线索回忆测试(mCRT)。mCRT的实用性值得进一步研究A和B版本的比较,自由回忆和提示回忆以及性能随时间的变化,以更好地了解基于年龄和AD临床状态的跟踪记忆衰退的敏感性。方法:研究对象为272例25 ~ 81岁的成人退行性痴呆患者(平均年龄43.12岁,SD = 9.79)。研究过程分为三个数据收集周期:基线、16个月随访和32个月随访。参与者被纳入阿尔茨海默生物标志物联盟-唐氏综合症纵向研究,并完成mCRT作为多日评估的一部分。比较了A版和B版mCRT在回忆和入侵得分上的差异。参与者的自由回忆相对于线索回忆的比率也在基线和纵向上进行了检查。参与者的表现按年龄组、临床AD状态(认知稳定[CS]、轻度认知障碍[MCI]或AD痴呆)和病前智力残疾(ID)水平进行比较。结果:存在版本差异,以中度和重度/深度ID组差异最显著。CS参与者的无mccrt回忆随年龄的增长而下降。MCI和AD痴呆患者的自由回忆和提示回忆得分较低,但轻度ID MCI组除外,其提示回忆得分与CS组无显著差异。从≥50岁开始的CS参与者在32个月内观察到下降(mCRT总分下降1.29分/年),患有MCI或AD痴呆诊断的成人DS患者下降更为明显(分别为3.36分和4.20分/年)。结论:表征测试版本差异以及参与者在mCRT上的自由回忆和提示回忆表现对于理解测试条件下的表现以及最大限度地提高临床干预的敏感性以获得有意义的效果非常重要。我们的研究结果表明,临床AD试验对退行性椎体滑移应谨慎使用两种版本的mCRT。检查自由相对于线索回忆的特征可以提高在发病前ID水平范围内检测成人DS治疗益处的敏感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Modified Cued Recall Test: Longitudinal Analysis of Test Versions and Item Recall in Adults With Down Syndrome.

Background: Adults with Down syndrome (DS) have an elevated risk and early age of onset for Alzheimer's disease (AD). To support upcoming clinical AD trials, there is a critical need to establish cognitive outcome measures that can be used to capture intervention effects. One measure that has successfully been used to detect AD-related cognitive decline in the DS population is a measure of episodic memory, the modified Cued Recall Test (mCRT). Demonstrated utility of the mCRT warrants further investigation into comparisons between the A and B versions, free versus cued recall and changes in performance over time to better understand sensitivity for tracking memory decline over time based on age and AD clinical status.

Method: Participants were 272 adults with DS aged 25-81 (mean age = 43.12 years, SD = 9.79). Study procedures were completed at three cycles of data collection: baseline, 16-month follow-up and 32-month follow-up. Participants were enrolled in the Alzheimer Biomarker Consortium-Down Syndrome longitudinal study and completed the mCRT as part of a multiday evaluation. Comparisons were made between the A and B versions of the mCRT in recall and intrusion scores. Participants' ratio of free relative to cued recall was also examined at baseline and longitudinally. Participant performance was compared by age group, clinical AD status (cognitively stable [CS], mild cognitive impairment [MCI] or AD dementia) and premorbid level of intellectual disability (ID).

Results: Version differences were identified, with the most salient differences in the moderate and severe/profound ID groups. The mCRT free recall declined with age in CS participants. Free and cued recall scores were lower in those with MCI and AD dementia, with the exception of the mild ID MCI group, whose cued recall scores were not significantly different from the CS group. Decline across 32 months (mCRT total score decline of 1.29 points/year) was observed for CS participants beginning at ≥ 50 years old, with more pronounced declines in adults with DS with an MCI or AD dementia diagnosis (3.36 and 4.20 points/year, respectively).

Conclusion: Characterising test version differences and participant free versus cued recall performance on the mCRT is important for understanding performance under testing conditions and to maximise the sensitivity of clinical interventions to capture meaningful effects. Our findings suggest that clinical AD trials for DS should be cautious about using both versions of the mCRT. Examining the profile of free relative to cued recall may enhance sensitivity for detecting treatment benefits for adults with DS across the range of premorbid ID levels.

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
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.
×
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