Melissa Mathews1, Erin Abner2, Richard Kryscio2, Gregory Jicha1, Gregory Cooper3, Charles Smith1, Allison Caban-Holt4, Frederick A Schmitt5. 1. Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 2. Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; Department of Statistics and Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 3. Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; Baptist Neurology Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 4. Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 5. Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. Electronic address: fascom@uky.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Uniform Data Set (UDS) neuropsychological battery is frequently used in clinical studies. However, practice effects, effectiveness as a measure of global cognitive functioning, and detection of mild cognitive impairment have not been examined. METHODS: A normative total score for the UDS has been developed. Linear discriminant analysis determined classification accuracy in identifying cognitively normal and impaired groups. Practice effects were examined in cognitively normal and cognitively impaired groups. RESULTS: The total score differentiates between cognitively normal participants and those with dementia, but does not accurately identify individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Mean total scores for test-exposed participants were significantly higher than test-naive participants in both the normal and MCI groups and were higher, but not significantly so, in the dementia group. CONCLUSION: The total score's classification accuracy discriminates between cognitively normal versus participants who have dementia. The total score appears subject to practice effects.
INTRODUCTION: The Uniform Data Set (UDS) neuropsychological battery is frequently used in clinical studies. However, practice effects, effectiveness as a measure of global cognitive functioning, and detection of mild cognitive impairment have not been examined. METHODS: A normative total score for the UDS has been developed. Linear discriminant analysis determined classification accuracy in identifying cognitively normal and impaired groups. Practice effects were examined in cognitively normal and cognitively impaired groups. RESULTS: The total score differentiates between cognitively normal participants and those with dementia, but does not accurately identify individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Mean total scores for test-exposed participants were significantly higher than test-naive participants in both the normal and MCI groups and were higher, but not significantly so, in the dementia group. CONCLUSION: The total score's classification accuracy discriminates between cognitively normal versus participants who have dementia. The total score appears subject to practice effects.
Authors: R D Terry; E Masliah; D P Salmon; N Butters; R DeTeresa; R Hill; L A Hansen; R Katzman Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 1991-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Frederick A Schmitt; Peter T Nelson; Erin Abner; Stephen Scheff; Gregory A Jicha; Charles Smith; Gregory Cooper; Marta Mendiondo; Deborah D Danner; Linda J Van Eldik; Allison Caban-Holt; Mark A Lovell; Richard J Kryscio Journal: Curr Alzheimer Res Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: M J Chandler; L H Lacritz; L S Hynan; H D Barnard; G Allen; M Deschner; M F Weiner; C M Cullum Journal: Neurology Date: 2005-07-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Sid E O'Bryant; Laura H Lacritz; James Hall; Stephen C Waring; Wenyaw Chan; Zeina G Khodr; Paul J Massman; Valerie Hobson; C Munro Cullum Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2010-06
Authors: J C Morris; A Heyman; R C Mohs; J P Hughes; G van Belle; G Fillenbaum; E D Mellits; C Clark Journal: Neurology Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Sandra Weintraub; David Salmon; Nathaniel Mercaldo; Steven Ferris; Neill R Graff-Radford; Helena Chui; Jeffrey Cummings; Charles DeCarli; Norman L Foster; Douglas Galasko; Elaine Peskind; Woodrow Dietrich; Duane L Beekly; Walter A Kukull; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2009 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Kevin Duff; Taylor J Atkinson; Kayla R Suhrie; Bonnie C Allred Dalley; Sydney Y Schaefer; Dustin B Hammers Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Eseosa T Ighodaro; Gregory A Jicha; Frederick A Schmitt; Janna H Neltner; Erin L Abner; Richard J Kryscio; Charles D Smith; Taylor Duplessis; Sonya Anderson; Ela Patel; Adam Bachstetter; Linda J Van Eldik; Peter T Nelson Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Yuriko Katsumata; Melissa Mathews; Erin L Abner; Gregory A Jicha; Allison Caban-Holt; Charles D Smith; Peter T Nelson; Richard J Kryscio; Frederick A Schmitt; David W Fardo Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 3.346
Authors: Yang Jiang; Haiqing Huang; Erin Abner; Lucas S Broster; Gregory A Jicha; Frederick A Schmitt; Richard Kryscio; Anders Andersen; David Powell; Linda Van Eldik; Brian T Gold; Peter T Nelson; Charles Smith; Mingzhou Ding Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 5.750