Martha Storandt1, John C Morris. 1. Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Washington University, 4488 Forest Park Ave, Ste 130, St Louis, MO 63108, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) is often based, at least in part, on poor cognitive test performance compared with normative values. OBJECTIVE: To examine the presence and extent of an ascertainment bias (omission of affected individuals) produced by such criteria when applied as early as possible in the course of the disease. DESIGN: Longitudinal study (1979-2008). SETTING: Washington University Alzheimer Disease Research Center, St Louis, Missouri. PARTICIPANTS: Of 78 individuals aged 65 to 101 years enrolled as healthy controls, 55 later developed autopsy-confirmed AD; 23 remained cognitively healthy and did not have neuropathologic AD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Criteria for the diagnosis of AD based on various cutoff points (1.5, 1.0, and 0.5 SDs below the mean for robust test norms) for 2 standard psychometric measures from each of 3 cognitive domains (episodic memory, visuospatial ability, and working memory) were applied to data from the first assessment associated with an independent clinical diagnosis of cognitive impairment for those who developed symptomatic AD and from the last assessment for those who did not. RESULTS: Areas under the curve from receiver operating characteristic analyses ranged from 0.71 to 0.49; sensitivities and specificities were unsatisfactory even after adjusting for age and education, using combinations of tests, or examining longitudinal decline before clinical diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Reliance on divergence from group normative values to determine initial cognitive decline caused by AD results in failure to include people in the initial symptomatic stage of the illness.
BACKGROUND: The clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) is often based, at least in part, on poor cognitive test performance compared with normative values. OBJECTIVE: To examine the presence and extent of an ascertainment bias (omission of affected individuals) produced by such criteria when applied as early as possible in the course of the disease. DESIGN: Longitudinal study (1979-2008). SETTING: Washington University Alzheimer Disease Research Center, St Louis, Missouri. PARTICIPANTS: Of 78 individuals aged 65 to 101 years enrolled as healthy controls, 55 later developed autopsy-confirmed AD; 23 remained cognitively healthy and did not have neuropathologic AD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Criteria for the diagnosis of AD based on various cutoff points (1.5, 1.0, and 0.5 SDs below the mean for robust test norms) for 2 standard psychometric measures from each of 3 cognitive domains (episodic memory, visuospatial ability, and working memory) were applied to data from the first assessment associated with an independent clinical diagnosis of cognitive impairment for those who developed symptomatic AD and from the last assessment for those who did not. RESULTS: Areas under the curve from receiver operating characteristic analyses ranged from 0.71 to 0.49; sensitivities and specificities were unsatisfactory even after adjusting for age and education, using combinations of tests, or examining longitudinal decline before clinical diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Reliance on divergence from group normative values to determine initial cognitive decline caused by AD results in failure to include people in the initial symptomatic stage of the illness.
Authors: J C Troncoso; A M Cataldo; R A Nixon; J L Barnett; M K Lee; F Checler; D R Fowler; J E Smialek; B Crain; L J Martin; C H Kawas Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: J C Morris; S Edland; C Clark; D Galasko; E Koss; R Mohs; G van Belle; G Fillenbaum; A Heyman Journal: Neurology Date: 1993-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: L Berg; D W McKeel; J P Miller; M Storandt; E H Rubin; J C Morris; J Baty; M Coats; J Norton; A M Goate; J L Price; M Gearing; S S Mirra; A M Saunders Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 1998-03
Authors: Richard Mayeux; Christiane Reitz; Adam M Brickman; Mary N Haan; Jennifer J Manly; M Maria Glymour; Christopher C Weiss; Kristine Yaffe; Laura Middleton; Hugh C Hendrie; Lauren H Warren; Kathleen M Hayden; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer; John C S Breitner; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Richard J Kryscio; Erin L Abner; Allison Caban-Holt; Mark Lovell; Phyllis Goodman; Amy K Darke; Monica Yee; John Crowley; Frederick A Schmitt Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Jason Hassenstab; Rachel Chasse; Perri Grabow; Tammie L S Benzinger; Anne M Fagan; Chengjie Xiong; Mateusz Jasielec; Elizabeth Grant; John C Morris Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Gali H Weissberger; Jessica V Strong; Kayla B Stefanidis; Mathew J Summers; Mark W Bondi; Nikki H Stricker Journal: Neuropsychol Rev Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 7.444
Authors: Christopher R Carpenter; Frances McFarland; Michael Avidan; Miles Berger; Sharon K Inouye; Jason Karlawish; Frank R Lin; Edward Marcantonio; John C Morris; David B Reuben; Raj C Shah; Heather E Whitson; Sanjay Asthana; Joe Verghese Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Cara L Carty; Carolyn Noonan; Clemma Muller; Don Saner; Eric M Reiman; Dedra Buchwald; Ronny A Bell; Lonnie A Nelson Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 1.847