V Shane Pankratz1, Rosebud O Roberts1, Michelle M Mielke1, David S Knopman1, Clifford R Jack1, Yonas E Geda1, Walter A Rocca1, Ronald C Petersen2. 1. From the Department of Internal Medicine (V.S.P.), University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque; Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research (R.O.R., M.M.M., W.A.R., R.C.P.), and Departments of Neurology (R.O.R., M.M.M., D.S.K., R.C.P.) and Radiology (C.R.J.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and the Departments of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neurology (Y.E.G.), Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ. 2. From the Department of Internal Medicine (V.S.P.), University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque; Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research (R.O.R., M.M.M., W.A.R., R.C.P.), and Departments of Neurology (R.O.R., M.M.M., D.S.K., R.C.P.) and Radiology (C.R.J.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and the Departments of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neurology (Y.E.G.), Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ. peter8@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop risk scores for the progression from cognitively normal (CN) to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: We recruited into a longitudinal cohort study a randomly selected, population-based sample of Olmsted County, MN, residents, aged 70 to 89 years on October 1, 2004. At baseline and subsequent visits, participants were evaluated for demographic, clinical, and neuropsychological measures, and were classified as CN, MCI, or dementia. Using baseline demographic and clinical variables in proportional hazards models, we derived scores that predicted the risk of progressing from CN to MCI. We evaluated the ability of these risk scores to classify participants for MCI risk. RESULTS: Of 1,449 CN participants, 401 (27.7%) developed MCI. A basic model had a C statistic of 0.60 (0.58 for women, 0.62 for men); an augmented model resulted in a C statistic of 0.70 (0.69 for women, 0.71 for men). Both men and women in the highest vs lowest sex-specific quartiles of the augmented model's risk scores had an approximately 7-fold higher risk of developing MCI. Adding APOE ε4 carrier status improved the model (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed MCI risk scores using variables easily assessable in the clinical setting and that may be useful in routine patient care. Because of variability among populations, validation in independent samples is required. These models may be useful in identifying patients who might benefit from more expensive or invasive diagnostic testing, and can inform clinical trial design. Inclusion of biomarkers or other risk factors may further enhance the models.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop risk scores for the progression from cognitively normal (CN) to mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: We recruited into a longitudinal cohort study a randomly selected, population-based sample of Olmsted County, MN, residents, aged 70 to 89 years on October 1, 2004. At baseline and subsequent visits, participants were evaluated for demographic, clinical, and neuropsychological measures, and were classified as CN, MCI, or dementia. Using baseline demographic and clinical variables in proportional hazards models, we derived scores that predicted the risk of progressing from CN to MCI. We evaluated the ability of these risk scores to classify participants for MCI risk. RESULTS: Of 1,449 CN participants, 401 (27.7%) developed MCI. A basic model had a C statistic of 0.60 (0.58 for women, 0.62 for men); an augmented model resulted in a C statistic of 0.70 (0.69 for women, 0.71 for men). Both men and women in the highest vs lowest sex-specific quartiles of the augmented model's risk scores had an approximately 7-fold higher risk of developing MCI. Adding APOE ε4 carrier status improved the model (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed MCI risk scores using variables easily assessable in the clinical setting and that may be useful in routine patient care. Because of variability among populations, validation in independent samples is required. These models may be useful in identifying patients who might benefit from more expensive or invasive diagnostic testing, and can inform clinical trial design. Inclusion of biomarkers or other risk factors may further enhance the models.
Authors: Brendon P Boot; Bradley F Boeve; Rosebud O Roberts; Tanis J Ferman; Yonas E Geda; V Shane Pankratz; Robert J Ivnik; Glenn E Smith; Eric McDade; Teresa J H Christianson; David S Knopman; Eric G Tangalos; Michael H Silber; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Muhammad Haroon Burhanullah; JoAnn T Tschanz; Matthew E Peters; Jeannie-Marie Leoutsakos; Joshua Matyi; Constantine G Lyketsos; Milap A Nowrangi; Paul B Rosenberg Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Julien Dumurgier; Bernard J Hanseeuw; Frances B Hatling; Kelly A Judge; Aaron P Schultz; Jasmeer P Chhatwal; Deborah Blacker; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson; Bradley T Hyman; Teresa Gómez-Isla Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Juraj Sprung; Rosebud O Roberts; David S Knopman; Lauren L Price; Hunter P Schulz; Christie L Tatsuyama; Toby N Weingarten; Darrell R Schroeder; Andrew C Hanson; Ronald C Petersen; David O Warner Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Rebecca A Nebel; Neelum T Aggarwal; Lisa L Barnes; Aimee Gallagher; Jill M Goldstein; Kejal Kantarci; Monica P Mallampalli; Elizabeth C Mormino; Laura Scott; Wai Haung Yu; Pauline M Maki; Michelle M Mielke Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Sajjad Fouladvand; Michelle M Mielke; Maria Vassilaki; Jennifer St Sauver; Ronald C Petersen; Sunghwan Sohn Journal: Proceedings (IEEE Int Conf Bioinformatics Biomed) Date: 2020-02-06