Kelsey R Thomas1, Joel S Eppig2, Alexandra J Weigand2, Emily C Edmonds1, Christina G Wong1, Amy J Jak1, Lisa Delano-Wood1, Douglas R Galasko3, David P Salmon4, Steven D Edland5, Mark W Bondi6. 1. Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. 2. San Diego State University/University of California, San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. 4. Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Family and Preventative Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 6. Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA, USA. Electronic address: mbondi@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We examined reasons for low mild cognitive impairment (MCI)-to-cognitively normal (CN) reversion rates in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). METHODS: CN and MCI participants were identified as remaining stable, progressing, or reverting at 1-year of follow-up (Year 1). Application of ADNI's MCI criteria at Year 1 in addition to Alzheimer's disease biomarkers by group were examined. RESULTS: The MCI-to-CN reversion rate was 3.0%. When specific components were examined, 22.5% of stable MCI participants had normal memory performance at Year 1 and their Alzheimer's disease biomarkers were consistent with the stable CN group. At Year 1, when all MCI criteria were not met, the more subjective Clinical Dementia Rating rather than objective memory measure appeared to drive continuation of the MCI diagnosis. DISCUSSION: Results demonstrate an artificially low 1-year MCI-to-CN reversion rate in ADNI-diagnosed participants. If the Logical Memory cutoffs had been consistently applied, the reversion rate would have been at least 21.8%. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: We examined reasons for low mild cognitive impairment (MCI)-to-cognitively normal (CN) reversion rates in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). METHODS: CN and MCI participants were identified as remaining stable, progressing, or reverting at 1-year of follow-up (Year 1). Application of ADNI's MCI criteria at Year 1 in addition to Alzheimer's disease biomarkers by group were examined. RESULTS: The MCI-to-CN reversion rate was 3.0%. When specific components were examined, 22.5% of stable MCI participants had normal memory performance at Year 1 and their Alzheimer's disease biomarkers were consistent with the stable CN group. At Year 1, when all MCI criteria were not met, the more subjective ClinicalDementia Rating rather than objective memory measure appeared to drive continuation of the MCI diagnosis. DISCUSSION: Results demonstrate an artificially low 1-year MCI-to-CN reversion rate in ADNI-diagnosed participants. If the Logical Memory cutoffs had been consistently applied, the reversion rate would have been at least 21.8%. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Kaj Blennow; Niklas Mattsson; Michael Schöll; Oskar Hansson; Henrik Zetterberg Journal: Trends Pharmacol Sci Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 14.819
Authors: Liesbeth Aerts; Megan Heffernan; Nicole A Kochan; John D Crawford; Brian Draper; Julian N Trollor; Perminder S Sachdev; Henry Brodaty Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 9.910
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: Kathryn N Devlin; Laura Brennan; Laura Saad; Tania Giovannetti; Roy H Hamilton; David A Wolk; Sharon X Xie; Dawn Mechanic-Hamilton Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.472
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
Authors: Andrea R Zammit; David A Bennett; Charles B Hall; Richard B Lipton; Mindy J Katz; Graciela Muniz-Terrera Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Philip S Insel; Michael Weiner; R Scott Mackin; Elizabeth Mormino; Yen Ying Lim; Erik Stomrud; Sebastian Palmqvist; Colin L Masters; Paul T Maruff; Oskar Hansson; Niklas Mattsson Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lisa V Graves; Emily C Edmonds; Kelsey R Thomas; Alexandra J Weigand; Shanna Cooper; Mark W Bondi Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472