OBJECTIVES: To investigate the implications of obtaining one or more low scores on a battery of cognitive tests on diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI). DESIGN: Observational longitudinal study. SETTING: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Normal controls (NC, n = 280) and participants with MCI (n = 415) according to Petersen criteria were reclassified using the Jak/Bondi criteria and number of impaired tests (NIT) criteria. MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic statistics and hazard ratios of progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) were compared according to diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: The NIT criteria were a better predictor of progression to AD than the Petersen or Jak/Bondi criteria, with optimal sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: Considering normal variability in cognitive test performance when diagnosing MCI may help identify individuals at greatest risk of progression to AD with greater certainty.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the implications of obtaining one or more low scores on a battery of cognitive tests on diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI). DESIGN: Observational longitudinal study. SETTING:Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Normal controls (NC, n = 280) and participants with MCI (n = 415) according to Petersen criteria were reclassified using the Jak/Bondi criteria and number of impaired tests (NIT) criteria. MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic statistics and hazard ratios of progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) were compared according to diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: The NIT criteria were a better predictor of progression to AD than the Petersen or Jak/Bondi criteria, with optimal sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: Considering normal variability in cognitive test performance when diagnosing MCI may help identify individuals at greatest risk of progression to AD with greater certainty.
Authors: Emily C Edmonds; Lisa Delano-Wood; Lindsay R Clark; Amy J Jak; Daniel A Nation; Carrie R McDonald; David J Libon; Rhoda Au; Douglas Galasko; David P Salmon; Mark W Bondi Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Jason Hassenstab; David Ruvolo; Mateusz Jasielec; Chengjie Xiong; Elizabeth Grant; John C Morris Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2015-05-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Amy J Jak; Sarah R Preis; Alexa S Beiser; Sudha Seshadri; Philip A Wolf; Mark W Bondi; Rhoda Au Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 2.892
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: Javier Oltra-Cucarella; Miriam Sánchez-SanSegundo; Darren M Lipnicki; John D Crawford; Richard B Lipton; Mindy J Katz; Andrea R Zammit; Nikolaos Scarmeas; Efthimios Dardiotis; Mary H Kosmidis; Antonio Guaita; Roberta Vaccaro; Ki Woong Kim; Ji Won Han; Nicole A Kochan; Henry Brodaty; José A Pérez-Vicente; Luis Cabello-Rodríguez; Perminder S Sachdev; Rosario Ferrer-Cascales Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Javier Oltra-Cucarella; Miriam Sánchez-SanSegundo; María Rubio-Aparicio; Juan Carlos Arango-Lasprilla; Rosario Ferrer-Cascales Journal: Assessment Date: 2019-07-31
Authors: Eero Vuoksimaa; Linda K McEvoy; Dominic Holland; Carol E Franz; William S Kremen Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Emily M Briceño; Roshanak Mehdipanah; Xavier Fonz Gonzales; Kenneth M Langa; Deborah A Levine; Nelda M Garcia; Ruth Longoria; Bruno J Giordani; Steven G Heeringa; Lewis B Morgenstern Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 3.295