Kelsey R Thomas1,2, Emily C Edmonds1,2, Joel Eppig3, David P Salmon4, Mark W Bondi1,2. 1. Veteran Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. 3. San Diego State University/University of California, San Diego (SDSU/UCSD) Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego, CA, USA. 4. Department of Neurosciences, University of California San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We previously operationally-defined subtle cognitive decline (SCD) in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) using total scores on neuropsychological (NP) tests. NP process scores (i.e., provide information about how a total NP score was achieved) may be a useful tool for identifying early cognitive inefficiencies prior to objective impairment seen in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to integrate process scores into the SCD definition to identify stages of SCD and improve early detection of those at risk for decline. METHODS: Cognitively "normal" participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were classified as "early" SCD (E-SCD; >1 SD below norm-adjusted mean on 2 process scores or on 1 process score plus 1 NP total score), "late" SCD (L-SCD; existing SCD criteria of >1 SD below norm-adjusted mean on 2 NP total scores in different domains), or "no SCD" (NC). Process scores considered in the SCD criteria were word-list intrusion errors, retroactive interference, and learning slope. Cerebrospinal fluid AD biomarkers were used to examine pathologic burden across groups. RESULTS: E-SCD and L-SCD progressed to MCI 2.5-3.4 times faster than the NC group. Survival curves for E-SCD and L-SCD converged at 7-8 years after baseline. The combined (E-SCD+L-SCD) group had improved sensitivity to detect progression to MCI relative to L-SCD only. AD biomarker positivity increased across NC, SCD, and MCI groups. CONCLUSIONS: Process scores can be integrated into the SCD criteria to allow for increased sensitivity and earlier identification of cognitively normal older adults at risk for decline prior to frank impairment on NP total scores.
BACKGROUND: We previously operationally-defined subtle cognitive decline (SCD) in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) using total scores on neuropsychological (NP) tests. NP process scores (i.e., provide information about how a total NP score was achieved) may be a useful tool for identifying early cognitive inefficiencies prior to objective impairment seen in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to integrate process scores into the SCD definition to identify stages of SCD and improve early detection of those at risk for decline. METHODS: Cognitively "normal" participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were classified as "early" SCD (E-SCD; >1 SD below norm-adjusted mean on 2 process scores or on 1 process score plus 1 NP total score), "late" SCD (L-SCD; existing SCD criteria of >1 SD below norm-adjusted mean on 2 NP total scores in different domains), or "no SCD" (NC). Process scores considered in the SCD criteria were word-list intrusion errors, retroactive interference, and learning slope. Cerebrospinal fluid AD biomarkers were used to examine pathologic burden across groups. RESULTS:E-SCD and L-SCD progressed to MCI 2.5-3.4 times faster than the NC group. Survival curves for E-SCD and L-SCD converged at 7-8 years after baseline. The combined (E-SCD+L-SCD) group had improved sensitivity to detect progression to MCI relative to L-SCD only. AD biomarker positivity increased across NC, SCD, and MCI groups. CONCLUSIONS: Process scores can be integrated into the SCD criteria to allow for increased sensitivity and earlier identification of cognitively normal older adults at risk for decline prior to frank impairment on NP total scores.
Authors: Emily C Edmonds; Lisa Delano-Wood; Douglas R Galasko; David P Salmon; Mark W Bondi Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Kelsey R Thomas; Joel Eppig; Emily C Edmonds; Diane M Jacobs; David J Libon; Rhoda Au; David P Salmon; Mark W Bondi Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: D S Knopman; C R Jack; H J Wiste; S D Weigand; P Vemuri; V Lowe; K Kantarci; J L Gunter; M L Senjem; R J Ivnik; R O Roberts; B F Boeve; R C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; Stephen D Weigand; Heather J Wiste; Prashanthi Vemuri; Val Lowe; Kejal Kantarci; Jeffrey L Gunter; Matthew L Senjem; Robert J Ivnik; Rosebud O Roberts; Walter A Rocca; Bradley F Boeve; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-04-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Claudia Jacova; Steven T Dekosky; Pascale Barberger-Gateau; Jeffrey Cummings; André Delacourte; Douglas Galasko; Serge Gauthier; Gregory Jicha; Kenichi Meguro; John O'brien; Florence Pasquier; Philippe Robert; Martin Rossor; Steven Salloway; Yaakov Stern; Pieter J Visser; Philip Scheltens Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Willa D Brenowitz; Sarah E Monsell; Frederick A Schmitt; Walter A Kukull; Peter T Nelson Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Clara Vila-Castelar; Kathryn V Papp; Rebecca E Amariglio; Valeria L Torres; Ana Baena; Diana Gomez; Jorge Rendon; Aubryn Samaroo; Francisco Lopera; Dorene M Rentz; Yakeel T Quiroz Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Kelsey R Thomas; Jessica R Osuna; Alexandra J Weigand; Emily C Edmonds; Alexandra L Clark; Sophia Holmqvist; Isabel H Cota; Christina E Wierenga; Mark W Bondi; Katherine J Bangen Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Kelsey R Thomas; Katherine J Bangen; Alexandra J Weigand; Emily C Edmonds; Erin Sundermann; Christina G Wong; Joel Eppig; Madeleine L Werhane; Lisa Delano-Wood; Mark W Bondi Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2020 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Lisa V Graves; Heather M Holden; Emily J Van Etten; Lisa Delano-Wood; Mark W Bondi; David P Salmon; Jody Corey-Bloom; Paul E Gilbert; Dean C Delis Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Shehroo B Pudumjee; Emily S Lundt; Sabrina M Albertson; Mary M Machulda; Walter K Kremers; Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Michelle M Mielke; Nikki H Stricker Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Kristina M Gicas; William G Honer; Robert S Wilson; Patricia A Boyle; Sue E Leurgans; Julie A Schneider; David A Bennett Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 9.910