Kevin Duff1, Jeffrey S Anderson2, Atul K Mallik2, Kayla R Suhrie3, Taylor J Atkinson3, Bonnie C A Dalley3, Sarah Shizuko Morimoto4, John M Hoffman5. 1. Center for Alzheimer's Care, Imaging and Research, Department of Neurology, University of Utah, United States. Electronic address: kevin.duff@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Utah, United States. 3. Center for Alzheimer's Care, Imaging and Research, Department of Neurology, University of Utah, United States. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah, United States. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Utah, United States; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practice effects are improvements in cognitive test scores due to repeated exposure to testing materials. If practice effects provide information about Alzheimer's disease pathology, then they could be useful for clinical trials enrichment. The current study sought to add to the limited literature on short-term practice effects on cognitive tests and their relationship to neuroimaging biomarkers. METHODS: Twenty-five, non-demented older adults (8 cognitively intact, 17 with mild cognitive impairment) received magnetic resonance imaging and two testing sessions across one week to determine practice effects on seven neuropsychological test scores. A series of correlations examined if hippocampal volume was associated with baseline, one-week, or practice effects scores on these tests. Next, a series of stepwise multiple regression models examined which of the three test scores best predicted hippocampal volumes RESULTS: In the correlation analysis, baseline scores on 5 of the 7 tests were significantly associated with hippocampal volumes, one week scores were significantly related for 7 of the 7 tests, and practice effects scores were significantly correlated for 4 of the 7 tests. In the stepwise regression models, 5 of the 7 tests indicated that one-week scores best predicted hippocampal volumes. For the other models, baseline score and practice effects score each best predicted hippocampal volume. CONCLUSIONS: These results add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that diminished practice effects on short-term repeat testing is related to neuroimaging biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease and may serve as a screening tool for clinical practice and to enrich samples for research trials.
BACKGROUND: Practice effects are improvements in cognitive test scores due to repeated exposure to testing materials. If practice effects provide information about Alzheimer's disease pathology, then they could be useful for clinical trials enrichment. The current study sought to add to the limited literature on short-term practice effects on cognitive tests and their relationship to neuroimaging biomarkers. METHODS: Twenty-five, non-demented older adults (8 cognitively intact, 17 with mild cognitive impairment) received magnetic resonance imaging and two testing sessions across one week to determine practice effects on seven neuropsychological test scores. A series of correlations examined if hippocampal volume was associated with baseline, one-week, or practice effects scores on these tests. Next, a series of stepwise multiple regression models examined which of the three test scores best predicted hippocampal volumes RESULTS: In the correlation analysis, baseline scores on 5 of the 7 tests were significantly associated with hippocampal volumes, one week scores were significantly related for 7 of the 7 tests, and practice effects scores were significantly correlated for 4 of the 7 tests. In the stepwise regression models, 5 of the 7 tests indicated that one-week scores best predicted hippocampal volumes. For the other models, baseline score and practice effects score each best predicted hippocampal volume. CONCLUSIONS: These results add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that diminished practice effects on short-term repeat testing is related to neuroimaging biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease and may serve as a screening tool for clinical practice and to enrich samples for research trials.
Authors: Bruce Fischl; David H Salat; Evelina Busa; Marilyn Albert; Megan Dieterich; Christian Haselgrove; Andre van der Kouwe; Ron Killiany; David Kennedy; Shuna Klaveness; Albert Montillo; Nikos Makris; Bruce Rosen; Anders M Dale Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: E C Mormino; J T Kluth; C M Madison; G D Rabinovici; S L Baker; B L Miller; R A Koeppe; C A Mathis; M W Weiner; W J Jagust Journal: Brain Date: 2008-11-28 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Martin Vyhnalek; Tomas Nikolai; Ross Andel; Zuzana Nedelska; Eva Rubínová; Hana Marková; Jan Laczó; Ondrej Bezdicek; Katerina Sheardova; Jakub Hort Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Kevin Duff; Leigh J Beglinger; David J Moser; Susan K Schultz; Jane S Paulsen Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Bang Zheng; Chinedu Udeh-Momoh; Tamlyn Watermeyer; Celeste A de Jager Loots; Jamie K Ford; Catherine E Robb; Parthenia Giannakopoulou; Sara Ahmadi-Abhari; Susan Baker; Gerald P Novak; Geraint Price; Lefkos T Middleton Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 5.702
Authors: Dustin B Hammers; Kayla R Suhrie; Ava Dixon; Sariah Porter; Kevin Duff Journal: Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn Date: 2020-07-02
Authors: Dustin B Hammers; Kayla Suhrie; Ava Dixon; Brian D Gradwohl; Zane G Archibald; Jace B King; Robert J Spencer; Kevin Duff; John M Hoffman Journal: Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn Date: 2021-05-05
Authors: Roos J Jutten; Evan Grandoit; Nancy S Foldi; Sietske A M Sikkes; Richard N Jones; Seo-Eun Choi; Melissa L Lamar; Diana K N Louden; Joanne Rich; Douglas Tommet; Paul K Crane; Laura A Rabin Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2020-07-09