OBJECTIVE: To describe how practice effects influence cognitive trajectories and determine if a reduction in practice effects is a potential marker of Stage-III preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHOD: Participants included 263 older adults who were cognitively normal at baseline (i.e., had a Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] of 0; Morris, 1993) and returned for an average of 9.5 annual visits. Participants completed standard tests of episodic memory, visuospatial ability, semantic memory, and executive function. Progressors (n = 66) converted to CDR > 0 with a diagnosis of symptomatic AD after a minimum of 3 visits and stable participants (n = 197) never progressed to CDR > 0. Practice effects, defined as the slope of performance across Visits 1-3, were compared between groups and used within subjects to predict risk of conversion. Change-point models that accounted for retest were contrasted with linear models that ignored retest. RESULTS: The stable group showed practice effects on episodic-memory measures (β = 0.14, SE = .02, p < .0001) but the progressor group did not (β = 0.03, SE = .03, p = .343). Across all participants, practice effects on episodic-memory tests were associated with a decreased risk of progression to AD as indicated by the subdistribution hazards model (SHR; Fine & Gray, 1999); SHR = .110, 95% CI [.032, .384], p = .001). Finally, use of change-point models dramatically altered rate-of-change estimates compared with models that ignored practice. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that preclinical AD is marked by a reduction in practice effects in episodic memory and that the magnitude of gain from retesting is inversely related to progression risk. Assessment of practice effects may be a face-valid indicator of Stage-III preclinical AD. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: To describe how practice effects influence cognitive trajectories and determine if a reduction in practice effects is a potential marker of Stage-III preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHOD:Participants included 263 older adults who were cognitively normal at baseline (i.e., had a Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] of 0; Morris, 1993) and returned for an average of 9.5 annual visits. Participants completed standard tests of episodic memory, visuospatial ability, semantic memory, and executive function. Progressors (n = 66) converted to CDR > 0 with a diagnosis of symptomatic AD after a minimum of 3 visits and stable participants (n = 197) never progressed to CDR > 0. Practice effects, defined as the slope of performance across Visits 1-3, were compared between groups and used within subjects to predict risk of conversion. Change-point models that accounted for retest were contrasted with linear models that ignored retest. RESULTS: The stable group showed practice effects on episodic-memory measures (β = 0.14, SE = .02, p < .0001) but the progressor group did not (β = 0.03, SE = .03, p = .343). Across all participants, practice effects on episodic-memory tests were associated with a decreased risk of progression to AD as indicated by the subdistribution hazards model (SHR; Fine & Gray, 1999); SHR = .110, 95% CI [.032, .384], p = .001). Finally, use of change-point models dramatically altered rate-of-change estimates compared with models that ignored practice. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that preclinical AD is marked by a reduction in practice effects in episodic memory and that the magnitude of gain from retesting is inversely related to progression risk. Assessment of practice effects may be a face-valid indicator of Stage-III preclinical AD. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Reisa A Sperling; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; David A Bennett; Suzanne Craft; Anne M Fagan; Takeshi Iwatsubo; Clifford R Jack; Jeffrey Kaye; Thomas J Montine; Denise C Park; Eric M Reiman; Christopher C Rowe; Eric Siemers; Yaakov Stern; Kristine Yaffe; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Marcelle Morrison-Bogorad; Molly V Wagster; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
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: B C Dickerson; T R Stoub; R C Shah; R A Sperling; R J Killiany; M S Albert; B T Hyman; D Blacker; L Detoledo-Morrell Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Joseph L Price; Daniel W McKeel; Virginia D Buckles; Catherine M Roe; Chengjie Xiong; Michael Grundman; Lawrence A Hansen; Ronald C Petersen; Joseph E Parisi; Dennis W Dickson; Charles D Smith; Daron G Davis; Frederick A Schmitt; William R Markesbery; Jeffrey Kaye; Roger Kurlan; Christine Hulette; Brenda F Kurland; Roger Higdon; Walter Kukull; John C Morris Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2009-04-18 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Terry E Goldberg; Richard S E Keefe; Robert S Goldman; Delbert G Robinson; Philip D Harvey Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; William J Jagust; Leslie M Shaw; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner; Ronald C Petersen; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Yvette I Sheline; Marcus E Raichle; Abraham Z Snyder; John C Morris; Denise Head; Suzhi Wang; Mark A Mintun Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Ellen Grober; Charles B Hall; Richard B Lipton; Alan B Zonderman; Susan M Resnick; Claudia Kawas Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Dean Ho; Stephen R Quake; Edward R B McCabe; Wee Joo Chng; Edward K Chow; Xianting Ding; Bruce D Gelb; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Jason Hassenstab; Chih-Ming Ho; William C Mobley; Garry P Nolan; Steven T Rosen; Patrick Tan; Yun Yen; Ali Zarrinpar Journal: Trends Biotechnol Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 19.536
Authors: Kevin Duff; Kayla R Suhrie; Bonnie C A Dalley; Jeffrey S Anderson; John M Hoffman Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Jennifer S Rabin; Rodrigo D Perea; Rachel F Buckley; Taylor E Neal; Randy L Buckner; Keith A Johnson; Reisa A Sperling; Trey Hedden Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 5.357
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: Suzanne E Schindler; Mateusz S Jasielec; Hua Weng; Jason J Hassenstab; Ellen Grober; Lena M McCue; John C Morris; David M Holtzman; Chengjie Xiong; Anne M Fagan Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Silvia Nardelli; Sanath Allampati; Oliviero Riggio; Kevin D Mullen; Ravi Prakash; Stefania Gioia; Ariel Unser; Melanie B White; Andrew C Fagan; James B Wade; Alessio Farcomeni; Edith A Gavis; Jasmohan S Bajaj Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-12-30 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Kavon Javaherian; Brianne M Newman; Hua Weng; Jason Hassenstab; Chengjie Xiong; Dean Coble; Anne M Fagan; Tammie Benzinger; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2019 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Kelsey R Thomas; Emily C Edmonds; Joel S Eppig; Christina G Wong; Alexandra J Weigand; Katherine J Bangen; Amy J Jak; Lisa Delano-Wood; Douglas R Galasko; David P Salmon; Steven D Edland; Mark W Bondi Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 21.566