OBJECTIVE: To investigate the sensitivity of a large set of neuropsychological tests to detect cognitive changes due to prodromal Alzheimer's disease(AD); to compare their metrological properties in order to select a restricted number of these tests for the longitudinal follow-up of subjects with prodromal AD. PARTICIPANTS: 212 patients with mild cognitive impairment were tested at baseline by a standardised neuropsychological battery, which included: the Free and Cued Selective Reminding test (FCSRT), the Benton Visual Retention test, the Deno100, verbal fluency, a serial digit learning test, the double task of Baddeley, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) similarities, the Trail-Making Test and the WAIS digit symbol test. Patients were monitored every 6 months for up to 3 years in order to identify those who converted to AD (retrospectively classified as prodromal AD). Statistical analyses were performed using a nonlinear multivariate mixed model involving a latent process. This model assumes that the psychometric tests are nonlinear transformations of a common latent cognitive process, and it captures the metrological properties of tests. RESULTS: 57 patients converted to AD. The most sensitive tests in the detection of cognitive changes due to prodromal AD were the FCSRT, the semantic verbal fluency and the Deno100. Some tests exhibited a higher sensitivity to cognitive changes for subjects with high levels of cognition, such as the free recall, delayed free recall scores of the FCSRT and the semantic verbal fluency, whereas others showed a higher sensitivity at low levels of cognition, such as the total recall score of the FCSRT. CONCLUSIONS: Tests used for the follow-up of prodromal AD subjects should be chosen among those that actually decline in this stage of the disease and should be selected according to the subject's initial scores.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the sensitivity of a large set of neuropsychological tests to detect cognitive changes due to prodromal Alzheimer's disease(AD); to compare their metrological properties in order to select a restricted number of these tests for the longitudinal follow-up of subjects with prodromal AD. PARTICIPANTS: 212 patients with mild cognitive impairment were tested at baseline by a standardised neuropsychological battery, which included: the Free and Cued Selective Reminding test (FCSRT), the Benton Visual Retention test, the Deno100, verbal fluency, a serial digit learning test, the double task of Baddeley, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) similarities, the Trail-Making Test and the WAIS digit symbol test. Patients were monitored every 6 months for up to 3 years in order to identify those who converted to AD (retrospectively classified as prodromal AD). Statistical analyses were performed using a nonlinear multivariate mixed model involving a latent process. This model assumes that the psychometric tests are nonlinear transformations of a common latent cognitive process, and it captures the metrological properties of tests. RESULTS: 57 patients converted to AD. The most sensitive tests in the detection of cognitive changes due to prodromal AD were the FCSRT, the semantic verbal fluency and the Deno100. Some tests exhibited a higher sensitivity to cognitive changes for subjects with high levels of cognition, such as the free recall, delayed free recall scores of the FCSRT and the semantic verbal fluency, whereas others showed a higher sensitivity at low levels of cognition, such as the total recall score of the FCSRT. CONCLUSIONS: Tests used for the follow-up of prodromal AD subjects should be chosen among those that actually decline in this stage of the disease and should be selected according to the subject's initial scores.
Authors: Marilyn S Albert; Steven T DeKosky; Dennis Dickson; Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Nick C Fox; Anthony Gamst; David M Holtzman; William J Jagust; Ronald C Petersen; Peter J Snyder; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Roberta Biundo; Simona Gardini; Paolo Caffarra; Letizia Concari; Davide Martorana; Tauro Maria Neri; Michael F Shanks; Annalena Venneri Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Stephen F Carter; Diana Caine; Alistair Burns; Karl Herholz; Matthew A Lambon Ralph Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Stefan Bläsi; Antoinette E Zehnder; Manfred Berres; Kirsten I Taylor; René Spiegel; Andreas U Monsch Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 3.295
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: Birthe K Flo; Anna Maria Matziorinis; Stavros Skouras; Tobba Therkildsen Sudmann; Christian Gold; Stefan Koelsch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Amelia J Anderson-Mooney; Frederick A Schmitt; Elizabeth Head; Ira T Lott; Kenneth M Heilman Journal: Brain Cogn Date: 2016-02-27 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Stuart J Ritchie; Mark E Bastin; Elliot M Tucker-Drob; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Laura E Engelhardt; Simon R Cox; Natalie A Royle; Alan J Gow; Janie Corley; Alison Pattie; Adele M Taylor; Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; John M Starr; Joanna M Wardlaw; Ian J Deary Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Andrew J Lawrence; Rebecca L Brookes; Eva A Zeestraten; Thomas R Barrick; Robin G Morris; Hugh S Markus Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: N Philippi; V Noblet; E Duron; B Cretin; C Boully; I Wisniewski; M L Seux; C Martin-Hunyadi; E Chaussade; C Demuynck; S Kremer; S Lehéricy; D Gounot; J P Armspach; O Hanon; F Blanc Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2016-07-30 Impact factor: 6.982