OBJECTIVE: Data from the Einstein Aging Study (EAS) were used to prospectively evaluate the free recall score from the free and cued selective reminding test (FCSRT-FR) and logical memory I immediate recall (LM-IR) subtest of the Wechsler memory scale-revised for prediction of incident Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia among individuals from a community-based cohort with memory complaints. METHODS: Analyses included 854 participants, age ≥70 years, who initially had no dementia, and had memory complaints. Clinic evaluations were completed annually and AD dementia was diagnosed using standard criteria (n = 86 cases; average follow-up 4.1 years). Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate the prognostic ability of FCSRT-FR and LM-IR for incident AD over various durations of follow-up. RESULTS: For identifying those with memory complaints who will develop incident AD dementia over 2-4 years, the FCSRT-FR had better operating characteristics than LM-IR. APOE ε4 status, age, and education did not affect cut points; however, positive predictive values were higher among APOE ε4-positive individuals. CONCLUSIONS: For follow-up intervals of 2-4 years, the FCSRT-FR is more predictive than the LM-IR for identifying individuals with memory complaints who will develop incident AD. APOE ε4 status improves positive predictive value, but does not affect the choice of optimal cuts.
OBJECTIVE: Data from the Einstein Aging Study (EAS) were used to prospectively evaluate the free recall score from the free and cued selective reminding test (FCSRT-FR) and logical memory I immediate recall (LM-IR) subtest of the Wechsler memory scale-revised for prediction of incident Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia among individuals from a community-based cohort with memory complaints. METHODS: Analyses included 854 participants, age ≥70 years, who initially had no dementia, and had memory complaints. Clinic evaluations were completed annually and AD dementia was diagnosed using standard criteria (n = 86 cases; average follow-up 4.1 years). Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate the prognostic ability of FCSRT-FR and LM-IR for incident AD over various durations of follow-up. RESULTS: For identifying those with memory complaints who will develop incident AD dementia over 2-4 years, the FCSRT-FR had better operating characteristics than LM-IR. APOE ε4 status, age, and education did not affect cut points; however, positive predictive values were higher among APOE ε4-positive individuals. CONCLUSIONS: For follow-up intervals of 2-4 years, the FCSRT-FR is more predictive than the LM-IR for identifying individuals with memory complaints who will develop incident AD. APOE ε4 status improves positive predictive value, but does not affect the choice of optimal cuts.
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Marilyn S Albert; David S Knopman; Guy M McKhann; Reisa A Sperling; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Mindy J Katz; Richard B Lipton; Charles B Hall; Molly E Zimmerman; Amy E Sanders; Joe Verghese; Dennis W Dickson; Carol A Derby Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2012 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: M E Zimmerman; J W Pan; H P Hetherington; M J Katz; J Verghese; H Buschke; C A Derby; R B Lipton Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-03-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: R C Petersen; P S Aisen; L A Beckett; M C Donohue; A C Gamst; D J Harvey; C R Jack; W J Jagust; L M Shaw; A W Toga; J Q Trojanowski; M W Weiner Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-12-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Laura A Rabin; Colette M Smart; Paul K Crane; Rebecca E Amariglio; Lorin M Berman; Mercé Boada; Rachel F Buckley; Gaël Chételat; Bruno Dubois; Kathryn A Ellis; Katherine A Gifford; Angela L Jefferson; Frank Jessen; Mindy J Katz; Richard B Lipton; Tobias Luck; Paul Maruff; Michelle M Mielke; José Luis Molinuevo; Farnia Naeem; Audrey Perrotin; Ronald C Petersen; Lorena Rami; Barry Reisberg; Dorene M Rentz; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Shannon L Risacher; Octavio Rodriguez; Perminder S Sachdev; Andrew J Saykin; Melissa J Slavin; Beth E Snitz; Reisa A Sperling; Caroline Tandetnik; Wiesje M van der Flier; Michael Wagner; Steffen Wolfsgruber; Sietske A M Sikkes Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Magda Bucholc; Xuemei Ding; Haiying Wang; David H Glass; Hui Wang; Girijesh Prasad; Liam P Maguire; Anthony J Bjourson; Paula L McClean; Stephen Todd; David P Finn; KongFatt Wong-Lin Journal: Expert Syst Appl Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 6.954
Authors: Ellen Grober; Wenzhu Bi Mowrey; Amy R Ehrlich; Peter Mabie; Steven Hahn; Richard B Lipton Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Jeff Sevigny; Ping Chiao; Thierry Bussière; Paul H Weinreb; Leslie Williams; Marcel Maier; Robert Dunstan; Stephen Salloway; Tianle Chen; Yan Ling; John O'Gorman; Fang Qian; Mahin Arastu; Mingwei Li; Sowmya Chollate; Melanie S Brennan; Omar Quintero-Monzon; Robert H Scannevin; H Moore Arnold; Thomas Engber; Kenneth Rhodes; James Ferrero; Yaming Hang; Alvydas Mikulskis; Jan Grimm; Christoph Hock; Roger M Nitsch; Alfred Sandrock Journal: Nature Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Elizabeth C Mormino; Kathryn V Papp; Dorene M Rentz; Michael C Donohue; Rebecca Amariglio; Yakeel T Quiroz; Jasmeer Chhatwal; Gad A Marshall; Nancy Donovan; Jonathan Jackson; Jennifer R Gatchel; Bernard J Hanseeuw; Aaron P Schultz; Paul S Aisen; Keith A Johnson; Reisa A Sperling Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Julie M Jiang; Elizabeth K Seng; Molly E Zimmerman; Martin Sliwinski; Mimi Kim; Richard B Lipton Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472