Application and validation of an algorithmic classification of early impairment in cognitive performance

Yurun Cai, Jennifer A. Schrack, Yuri Agrawal, Nicole M. Armstrong, Amal Wanigatunga, Melissa Kitner-Triolo, Abhay Moghekar, Luigi Ferrucci, Eleanor M. Simonsick, Susan M. Resnick, Alden L. Gross
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.04.23285477

Abstract

Objective Due to the long prodromal period for dementia pathology, approaches are needed to detect cases before clinically recognizable symptoms are apparent, by which time it is likely too late to intervene. This study contrasted two theoretically-based algorithms for classifying early cognitive impairment (ECI) in adults aged ≥50 enrolled in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging.

Method Two ECI algorithms were defined as poor performance (1 standard deviation [SD] below age-, sex-, race-, and education-specific means) in: (1) Card Rotations or California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) immediate recall and (2) ≥1 (out of 2) memory or ≥3 (out of 6) non- memory tests. We evaluated concurrent criterion validity against consensus diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia and global cognitive scores using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Predictive criterion validity was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models to examine the associations between algorithmic status and future adjudicated MCI/dementia.

Results Among 1,851 participants (mean age=65.2±11.8 years, 50% women, 74% white), the two ECI algorithms yielded comparably moderate concurrent criterion validity with adjudicated MCI/dementia. For predictive criterion validity, the algorithm based on impairment in Card Rotations or CVLT immediate recall was the better predictor of MCI/dementia (HR=3.53, 95%CI: 1.59-7.84) over 12.3 follow-up years.

Conclusions Impairment in visuospatial ability or memory may be capable of detecting early cognitive changes in the preclinical phase among cognitively normal individuals.

Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease that interferes with daily activities in its later stages. Identification of early progression is critical to identify risk factors and to properly evaluate interventions to delay clinical onset. Progression to AD is hypothesized to begin with a preclinical phase characterized by normal cognitive ability, up to 20 years prior to a dementia diagnosis. 1–3 Thus, accurate and stable diagnostic criteria for identifying early cognitive changes prior to clinically recognizable symptoms of dementia are crucial for purposes of targeting preventive interventions most likely to slow pathological progression.

A wide range of neuropsychological measures have been leveraged in epidemiologic studies for the classification of dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). There is a plethora of different algorithms developed based on poor performance in cognitive and everyday functional measures to classify MCI or dementia in lieu of clinical judgement, frequently motivated by various psychiatric 2,3 or neuropsychological traditions 4–6. As episodic memory impairment is most seen in MCI patients who progress to AD, conventional Petersen criteria defined MCI is based on performance >1.5 standard deviation (SD) below age-appropriate norms on a single memory test 7. This approach has been expanded to multiple other cognitive domains (e.g., executive, language) and requires multiple tests, within each cognitive domain >1 SD below age-appropriate norms to balance sensitivity and specificity. 4 Although neuropsychological criteria have been validated in multiple cohort studies for MCI classification, 5,6 few studies have carefully considered which cognitive tests should be included to detect early cognitive decline in preclinical stages of dementia before the symptomatic phase. 8 Specifically, visuospatial function has not been considered as a separate domain in these algorithms, however, a recent study reported that visuospatial ability measured using the Card Rotations test showed the earliest changes in rate of decline at 15.5 years before AD diagnosis, followed by episodic memory where changes were detected up to 11.7 years before AD diagnosis9. These findings make some biological sense, given that visuospatial ability as measured by Card Rotations are thought to be controlled in the brain’s precuneous and retrosplenial cortex, atrophy in which is an early risk factor for ADRD.9–11 Thus, incorporating visual function tests in algorithms may help identify individuals who are at high risk of developing ADRD in early stages. 12

We leveraged data from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA), which has followed people for up to 33 years prior to dementia diagnosis starting as early as 1986. In the present study, we aim to contrast two psychometrically defined algorithms for classifying early cognitive impairment (ECI) in middle-aged and older adults enrolled in the BLSA. One algorithm was developed based on visual spatial and episodic memory which have showed early decline in progression to ADRD.9 Another algorithm used conventional neuropsychological criteria to detect early amnestic or nonamnestic cognitive decline which we hypothesize may predict all-cause dementia. By comparing different algorithmic classification criteria, we aim to identify optimal classification criteria for early identification of older adults with risk of MCI and dementia. We evaluated these algorithms by comparing concurrent and predictive criterion validation against consensus diagnoses and global measures of cognitive and functional impairment.

Methods

The BLSA is a longitudinal cohort study established in 1958 and conducted by the National Institute on Aging Intramural Research Program. The study aims to explore the interdependence of aging and disease processes and their mutual impact on physical and cognitive function. A detailed description of the study design is available 15. The study continuously recruits community-dwelling volunteers free of major chronic conditions and cognitive and functional impairment at the time of enrollment. Participants are followed for health characteristics, cognitive assessments, and physical function testing every 1-4 years depending on age (every 4 years for age <60, every 2 years for age 60-79, and annually for age ≥80). The present study includes 1,880 participants aged ≥50 years who underwent cognitive testing from 1993 through 2019. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study protocol was approved by the National Institutes of Health Intramural Institutional Review Board.

Neuropsychological tests

A wide variety of cognitive tests are administered in the BLSA. In the current study, attention and executive function were assessed using the Digit Span Forward and Backward subtests in the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised (WAIS-R) 16. Visual memory was measured using the Benton Visual Retention Test (BVRT) 17. Language was assessed using the 60-item Boston Naming Test (BNT-60) 18 and Similarities from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) 16. Visuospatial ability was measured using the difference between the number of correctly and incorrectly classified objects on a modified version of the Card Rotations test developed by the Educational Testing Service 19. Verbal episodic memory was measured using the immediate (total number of items recalled across five trials) and long-delay free recall in the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) 20.

Algorithmic classification of ECI

The ECI algorithms were determined based on the Preclinical AD Consortium but tailored for the BLSA sample depending on the number of neuropsychological tests administered in each cognitive domain and cutoff points used 8. Briefly, poor cognitive performance was operationalized as 1 SD below age-, sex-, race- (white vs nonwhite), and education-specific means. The race adjustment in addition to education is based on the consideration that education may not indicate the same level of educational attainment or intellectual exposure for different racial groups in the US particularly for those growing up in the 60’s and 70’s. According to previous literature using Jak/Bondi comprehensive criteria, ECI classification was determined based on memory and non-memory domains 5,6. In this study, we classified CVLT immediate and long-delay free recall as memory tests and other neuropsychological tests as non-memory tests. As previous findings suggesting that visuospatial ability measured by Card Rotations test and CVLT immediate recall showed the earliest changes in cognitive decline during preclinical stage of AD 9,21, we explored the algorithms using visuospatial ability and immediate recall for ECI classification. Thus, in this study, two ECI classification algorithms were developed and compared: (1) poor performance in Card Rotations or CVLT immediate recall and (2) poor performance in ≥1 (out of 2) memory or ≥3 (out of 6) non-memory tests.

Global cognitive and functional scores

Three measures of global cognitive and/or functional status were used. Global mental status was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) 22. The Blessed Information Memory Concentration (BIMC) test is a mental status instrument that has been widely used in clinical populations and research studies 23. CDR Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) is a global cognitive and functional assessment of six domains: memory, orientation, judgement/problem solving, community affairs, home/hobbies, and personal care 24,25.

Adjudicated diagnosis of MCI/dementia

Participants with BIMC test score ≥4 or CDR score ≥0.5 were reviewed at consensus diagnostic conferences. Experienced clinicians diagnosed MCI based on Petersen criteria 7 and dementia based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, revised third edition criteria 26,27.

Covariates

Sociodemographic characteristics including age, sex, race, and years of education were collected from a health interview. Race was categorized into white and non-white (e.g., Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islanders).

Statistical Analysis

Sample characteristics including baseline age, sex, race, and years of education were summarized into frequencies and percentages or means and standard deviations.

First, we evaluated concurrent validity of the algorithms with concurrent consensus diagnoses of MCI/dementia (Table 1). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to calculate area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. All BLSA visits among all eligible participants with available cognitive data were included in the analysis. We also examined whether each ECI algorithmic classification was concurrently correlated with MMSE score and other global cognitive and functioning scores (BIMC and CDR-SB scores). Dichotomous global scores were used for the analysis, with cutoff points determined as MMSE ≤26 28, BIMC ≥4 29, and CDR-SB ≥0.5 24.

View this table:
Table 1. Concurrent criterion validity for each algorithmic classification of early cognitive impairment (ECI) with consensus diagnosis and global cognitive scores.

Second, we evaluated predictive criterion validity of each algorithm with future progression to adjudicated MCI/dementia (Table 2). Cox proportional hazards models were used to model associations between the earliest ECI status determined based on each algorithmic classification and time to adjudicated MCI/dementia during follow up. Participants who had MCI/dementia diagnosis at the first visit with available cognitive data were excluded from this analysis.

View this table:
Table 2. Predictive criterion validity for each algorithmic classification of early cognitive impairment (ECI) at baseline predicting progression to consensus diagnosis of MCI/dementia during follow up.

Third, we additionally examined the association between baseline MMSE, BIMC, and CDR-SB scores and time to first algorithmically defined ECI during follow up, adjusted for age, sex, race, and years of education (Table 3). Participants who already had ECI at baseline were excluded from this analysis.

View this table:
Table 3. Baseline global cognitive scores as predictors of progression to algorithmically defined early cognitive impairment (ECI) during follow up.

Statistical tests were two-tailed and the significance level α was set as 0.05. All analyses were conducted using Stata version 16.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

Among 1,851 participants in analyses, the mean age at baseline was 65.2 (SD=11.8) years, about half of participants were female (n=917, 49.5%), and 73.8% (n=1,366) were white (Supplementary Table 1). The average education level was 16.8 (SD=2.7) years. At baseline with available cognitive data, over one third of the participants (n=628, 34.0%) were classified as having ECI based on poor performance in Card Rotations or CVLT immediate recall. One third of the participants (n=597, 32.3%) had ECI based on poor performance in memory or nonmemory tests.

Concurrent criterion validation

Table 1 summarizes evidence for concurrent criterion validity for both algorithmic classifications with respect to consensus diagnoses of MCI/dementia and global cognitive and functional scores. Compared with the consensus diagnoses, the AUC for the ECI algorithm based on poor performance in memory or nonmemory tests had a higher AUC (AUC = 0.703 vs AUC = 0.631). The two algorithms had comparable specificity (0.74 and 0.75) but the ECI algorithm based on memory or nonmemory tests had the higher sensitivity (0.65 vs. 0.52). Regarding evidence of concurrent criterion validity with MMSE, CDR-SB, and BIMC scores, the two algorithms had comparable AUCs, sensitivity, and specificity (Table 1).

Predictive criterion validation

Among 1,851 participants, n=21 were diagnosed with MCI/dementia at baseline or prior BLSA visits. Among 1,538 participants with at least 2 visits with cognitive data and without MCI/dementia at baseline, 43 participants progressed to MCI/dementia. The average follow-up years between baseline and a consensus diagnosis of MCI/dementia was 12.3 (SD=6.9) years. Table 2 summarizes the number of cases with consensus diagnoses over follow up and hazard ratios (HRs) for progression to MCI/dementia based on each algorithm. The algorithm based on impaired Card Rotations or CVLT immediate recall outperformed the other in terms of the ability to predict future progression to MCI/dementia. Participants with ECI based on this algorithm at baseline had over triple the risk of developing MCI/dementia (HR=3.53, 95% CI: 1.59-7.84) compared to those without ECI. The algorithm based on poor performance in memory or nonmemory tests also significantly predicted future progression to MCI/dementia (HR=2.24, 95% CI: 1.11-4.51).

Global cognitive scores with future algorithmic determined ECI

We additionally examined the relationship between baseline MMSE, BIMC, and CDR-SB scores and hazard of early algorithmic diagnoses using Cox proportional hazards models (Table 3). The algorithm based on poor performance in memory or nonmemory tended to have higher HRs of being predicted by MMSE or BIMC score. Comparable HRs were observed for the two algorithms when they were predicted by CDR-SB score.

Discussion

This study contrasted two psychometrically defined algorithms to classify older adults with ECI in the BLSA. Results suggest that these ECI algorithms yielded comparably moderate concurrent criterion validity with consensus diagnoses of MCI/dementia and global cognitive and functional impairment. However, the algorithm based on poor performance in visuospatial ability (Card Rotations) or immediate memory (CVLT immediate recall) had a stronger relationship with future progression to MCI/dementia among the algorithms we evaluated. This pattern of findings indicates that impairment in visuospatial ability or memory may be capable of detecting early cognitive changes in the preclinical phase among cognitively normal individuals.

Our findings are consistent with previous research demonstrating that tests of visuospatial and memory function are among the earliest to show decline prior to onset of Alzheimer’s type dementia 9,21. Our results suggest that older adults with poor performance in Card Rotations or CVLT immediate recall had over triple the risk of progressing to MCI or dementia. Previous studies found that multiple domain amnestic MCI, defined as impairment in memory and at least one other domain (i.e., executive function, processing speed, language), significantly predicted incident dementia using data from the Framingham Heart Study 5. The algorithm based on one test in visuospatial ability and one test in episodic memory may provide novel and simplified neuropsychological criteria to identify ECI. Deficits in visuospatial functioning also have been associated with probable Lewy Body dementia 30,31. Studies also suggested the diagnostic and prognostic potential of visuospatial tasks in AD and non-AD dementias 32–34. The underlying mechanisms that may lead to early impairment in visuospatial ability as an indicator of ECI are related to the precuneus and other parietal regions that support spatial navigation 35,36. The precuneus is also one of the earliest brain regions to show β amyloid accumulation in preclinical AD 37,38. Our study extends previous research by demonstrating the predictive criterion validity of this algorithm with clinical diagnosis of MCI/dementia and highlights the importance of incorporating visuospatial ability into identification of ECI. Our findings may suggest a novel method to detect and diagnose cognitive impairment at an earlier stage. Future studies should investigate whether this algorithm is capable of identifying ECI in other older populations.

Great efforts have been made to define different neuropsychological criteria for MCI diagnoses and to derive a common classification algorithm for identification of MCI across several cohort studies 4,6,8,39. These efforts range from a single impaired memory score towards one or two tests in multiple cognitive domains such as memory, language, and speed/executive function 6, which enables identifications of MCI subtypes 5,6. The latter approach is consistent with DSM-5 criteria for mild and major neurocognitive disorder, which specifies domains of learning and memory, higher-level executive abilities, language, visuospatial function, and social cognition 40. Although, strictly speaking, our approach is not identical to the Jak/Bondi criteria which require at least two impaired scores (1 SD below the means) within a cognitive domain,4,6 we took both memory and non-memory tests into account. Future research is needed to validate these algorithms for early identification of cognitive impairment in other large cohort studies.

The algorithmic approach we describe may be useful in future clinical trials or observational studies as a validated tool to differentiate cognitively normal older adults who may be in the preclinical stages of AD, which may be an alternative to time-consuming adjudication. As these algorithms were derived based on age-, sex-, race-, and education-specific cut-points, this approach may be utilized in other cohort studies of cognitively intact older adults with diverse characteristics. Although the diagnosis of MCI in clinical settings also relies on other factors such as subject complaints and proxy reports, this study provides evidence for further investigations on application of algorithmic approaches as supplementary information in the clinical decision-making process.

Strengths of this study include large sample size, long follow-up period, and a large battery of neuropsychological tests. This study has several limitations. First, the generalizability of our findings to other cohorts needs to be considered in light of heterogeneity in cognitive batteries across studies. Validations of these algorithms using data from other cohort studies are needed. Second, the majority of BLSA participants were white. Although the algorithmic classification is race-adjusted, this approach should be validated in larger, more representative samples of diverse racial groups – especially given that sensitivity and specificity of algorithms varies across racial and other demographic groups 41. Third, we used an age-, sex-, race-, and education-adjusted cutoff of 1 SD to define poor performance on each test. Refinement of this cutoff is a viable future research area. Fourth, the algorithmic classification was determined based on age-specific means at any single time point. Although this approach may enhance clinical utility for providers with single office visit assessments, there is a possibility that an individual who was classified as impaired within their current age group may move to the unimpaired group in a subsequent visit, limiting the application of the algorithm to longitudinal studies aimed to examine changes in cognitive status. A further limitation is that while we are interested in a measure sensitive to cognitive changes in the preclinical phase of AD, our outcome was all-cause dementia as adjudicated by a clinical consensus committee, which is a broader classification than AD as a primary etiology. We did not explore that outcome because of the confluence of small case numbers coupled with misclassification errors in diagnoses of living participants. 42

In conclusion, this study compared two classification algorithms to detect early cognitive impairment among cognitively normal adults aged 50 years and older enrolled in the BLSA study. The algorithm based on impairment in visuospatial ability or immediate recall had a stronger relationship with future progression to consensus diagnoses of MCI or dementia. These algorithmic approaches may be further utilized to detect early cognitive changes in the preclinical phase before progression to symptomatic phase of dementia. Future studies incorporating motor function impairment into the algorithms may further enhance the ability to capture preclinical changes across the spectrum of various types of dementias. Additional research is needed to relate the algorithmic approaches to AD biomarkers and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant R01AG061786. Y.C. and J.A.S. were supported by R01AG061786 and U01AG057545. A.G. was supported by the NIH K01AG050699. This study was also supported in part by the Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Aging, NIH. N.M.A., M.K-T., L.F., E.M.S., S.M.R. were all supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging, NIH.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Vermunt L, Sikkes SAM, van den Hout A, et al. Duration of preclinical, prodromal, and dementia stages of Alzheimer’s disease in relation to age, sex, and APOE genotype. Alzheimers Dement. 2019;15(7):888–898. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.04.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Kessler RC, Üstün TB. The World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2004;13(2):93–121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.168
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Kessler RC, Abelson J, Demler O, et al. Clinical calibration of DSM-IV diagnoses in the World Mental Health (WMH) version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2004;13(2):122–139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.169
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Jak AJ, Bondi MW, Delano-Wood L, et al. Quantification of five neuropsychological approaches to defining mild cognitive impairment. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009;17(5):368–375. doi:10.1097/JGP.0b013e31819431d5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    Jak AJ, Preis SR, Beiser AS, et al. Neuropsychological criteria for mild cognitive impairment and dementia risk in the Framingham Heart Study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2016;22(9):937–943. doi:10.1017/S1355617716000199
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    Bondi MW, Edmonds EC, Jak AJ, et al. Neuropsychological criteria for mild cognitive impairment improves diagnostic precision, biomarker associations, and progression rates. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;42(1):275–289. doi:10.3233/JAD-140276
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    Petersen RC, Smith GE, Waring SC, Ivnik RJ, Tangalos EG, Kokmen E. Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Arch Neurol. 1999;56(3):303–308. doi:10.1001/archneur.56.3.303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. 8.↵
    Gross AL, Hassenstab JJ, Johnson SC, et al. A classification algorithm for predicting progression from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment across five cohorts: The preclinical AD consortium. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2017;8:147–155. doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2017.05.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.↵
    Williams OA, An Y, Armstrong NM, Kitner-Triolo M, Ferrucci L, Resnick SM. Profiles of cognitive change in preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer’s disease using change-point analysis. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;75(4):1169–1180. doi:10.3233/JAD-191268
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.
    Cavanna AE, Trimble MR. The precuneus: a review of its functional anatomy and behavioural correlates. Brain. 2006;129(3):564–583. doi:10.1093/brain/awl004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    Burles F, Umiltá A, McFarlane LH, Potocki K, Iaria G. Ventral—Dorsal Functional Contribution of the Posterior Cingulate Cortex in Human Spatial Orientation: A Meta-Analysis. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00190
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    Petersen RC, Morris JC. Mild cognitive impairment as a clinical entity and treatment target. Arch Neurol. 2005;62(7):1160-1163; discussion 1167. doi:10.1001/archneur.62.7.1160
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.
    Edmonds EC, Delano-Wood L, Galasko DR, Salmon DP, Bondi MW. Subtle Cognitive Decline and Biomarker Staging in Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. 2015;47(1):231–242. doi:10.3233/JAD-150128
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.
    Thomas KR, Edmonds EC, Eppig J, Salmon DP, Bondi MW. Using Neuropsychological Process Scores to Identify Subtle Cognitive Decline and Predict Progression to Mild Cognitive Impairment. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. 2018;64(1):195–204. doi:10.3233/JAD-180229
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Kuo PL, Schrack JA, Shardell MD, et al. A roadmap to build a phenotypic metric of ageing: insights from the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. J Intern Med. 2020;287(4):373–394. doi:10.1111/joim.13024
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Psychological Corporation; 1981.
  17. 17.↵
    Benton AL. The Revised Benton Visual Retention Test. Psychological Corporation; 1974.
  18. 18.↵
    Kaplan EF, Goodglass H, Weintraub S. The Boston Naming Test. 2nd ed. Lea & Febiger; 1983.
  19. 19.↵
    Wilson JR, de Fries JC, Mc Clearn GE, Vandenberg SG, Johnson RC, Rashad MN. Cognitive abilities: use of family data as a control to assess sex and age differences in two ethnic groups. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 1975;6(3):261–276. doi:10.2190/BBJP-XKUG-C6EW-KYB7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Delis D, Kramer J, Kaplan E, Ober B. California Verbal Learning Test. The Psychological Corporation; 1987.
  21. 21.↵
    Bilgel M, Koscik RL, An Y, et al. Temporal order of Alzheimer’s disease-related cognitive marker changes in BLSA and WRAP longitudinal studies. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. 2017;59:1335–1347. doi:10.3233/JAD-170448
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–198. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Thal LJ, Grundman M, Golden R. Alzheimer’s disease: a correlational analysis of the Blessed Information-Memory-Concentration Test and the Mini-Mental State Exam. Neurology. 1986;36(2):262–264. doi:10.1212/wnl.36.2.262
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    O’Bryant SE, Waring SC, Cullum CM, et al. Staging dementia using Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes scores: a Texas Alzheimer’s research consortium study. Arch Neurol. 2008;65(8):1091–1095. doi:10.1001/archneur.65.8.1091
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). Neurology. 1993;43(11):2412 LP-2412-a. doi:10.1212/WNL.43.11.2412-a
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd Ed., Revised (DSM-III-R). American Psychiatric Publishing; 1987. doi:10.1176/ajp.145.10.1301
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    Kawas C, Gray S, Brookmeyer R, Fozard J, Zonderman A. Age-specific incidence rates of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 2000;54(11):2072–2077. doi:10.1212/WNL.54.11.2072
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    Kukull WA, Larson EB, Teri L, Bowen J, McCormick W, Pfanschmidt ML. The Mini-Mental State Examination score and the clinical diagnosis of dementia. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(9):1061–1067. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90122-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    1. Kreutzer JS,
    2. DeLuca J,
    3. Caplan B
    Keller AJ, Sherman EMS, Strauss E. Blessed Dementia Scale BT - Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology. In: Kreutzer JS, DeLuca J, Caplan B, eds. Springer New York; 2011:413–415. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_531
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    Mori E, Shimomura T, Fujimori M, et al. Visuoperceptual impairment in dementia with Lewy bodies. Arch Neurol. 2000;57(4):489–493. doi:10.1001/archneur.57.4.489
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    Hamilton JM, Salmon DP, Galasko D, et al. Visuospatial deficits predict rate of cognitive decline in autopsy-verified dementia with Lewy bodies. Neuropsychology. 2008;22(6):729–737. doi:10.1037/a0012949
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Salimi S, Irish M, Foxe D, Hodges JR, Piguet O, Burrell JR. Can visuospatial measures improve the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease? Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2017;10:66–74. doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2017.10.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.
    Herlitz A, Hill RD, Fratiglioni L, Bäckman L. Episodic memory and visuospatial ability in detecting and staging dementia in a community-based sample of very old adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995;50(2):M107–13. doi:10.1093/gerona/50a.2.m107
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    Johnson DK, Storandt M, Morris JC, Galvin JE. Longitudinal study of the transition from healthy aging to Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol. 2009;66(10):1254–1259. doi:10.1001/archneurol.2009.158
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    Coughlan G, Laczó J, Hort J, Minihane AM, Hornberger M. Spatial navigation deficits - overlooked cognitive marker for preclinical Alzheimer disease? Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14(8):496–506. doi:10.1038/s41582-018-0031-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Cavanna AE, Trimble MR. The precuneus: a review of its functional anatomy and behavioural correlates. Brain. 2006;129(Pt 3):564–583. doi:10.1093/brain/awl004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    Rodrigue KM, Kennedy KM, Devous MDS, et al. β-Amyloid burden in healthy aging: regional distribution and cognitive consequences. Neurology. 2012;78(6):387–395. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e318245d295
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    Bilgel M, Prince JL, Wong DF, Resnick SM, Jedynak BM. A multivariate nonlinear mixed effects model for longitudinal image analysis: Application to amyloid imaging. Neuroimage. 2016;134:658–670. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Thomas KR, Cook SE, Bondi MW, et al. Application of neuropsychological criteria to classify mild cognitive impairment in the ACTIVE study. Neuropsychology. 2020;34(8):862–873. doi:10.1037/neu0000694
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
  41. 41.↵
    Gianattasio KZ, Wu Q, Glymour MM, Power MC. Comparison of Methods for Algorithmic Classification of Dementia Status in the Health and Retirement Study. Epidemiology. 2019;30(2):291–302. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000945
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology. 1990;1(1):43–46. https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/1990/01000/No_Adjustments_Are_Needed_for_Multiple_Comparisons.10.aspx
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted February 07, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Application and validation of an algorithmic classification of early impairment in cognitive performance
Yurun Cai, Jennifer A. Schrack, Yuri Agrawal, Nicole M. Armstrong, Amal Wanigatunga, Melissa Kitner-Triolo, Abhay Moghekar, Luigi Ferrucci, Eleanor M. Simonsick, Susan M. Resnick, Alden L. Gross
medRxiv 2023.02.04.23285477; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.04.23285477
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area