Erin E Sundermann1, Pauline Maki2, Anat Biegon2, Richard B Lipton2, Michelle M Mielke2, Mary Machulda2, Mark W Bondi2. 1. From the Department of Psychiatry (E.E.S., M.W.B.), University of California, San Diego; Departments of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Obstetrics & Gynecology (P.M.), University of Illinois at Chicago; Department of Radiology and Neurology (A.B.), State University of New York, Stony Brook; Einstein Aging Study and Department of Neurology (R.B.L.), Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY; Departments of Health Sciences Research and Neurology (M.M.M.) and Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology (M.M.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System (M.W.B.), CA. esundermann@einstein.yu.edu. 2. From the Department of Psychiatry (E.E.S., M.W.B.), University of California, San Diego; Departments of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Obstetrics & Gynecology (P.M.), University of Illinois at Chicago; Department of Radiology and Neurology (A.B.), State University of New York, Stony Brook; Einstein Aging Study and Department of Neurology (R.B.L.), Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY; Departments of Health Sciences Research and Neurology (M.M.M.) and Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology (M.M.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System (M.W.B.), CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the use of sex-specific norms and cut scores to identify memory impairment improves diagnostic accuracy of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) compared to non-sex-specific (typical) norms/cut scores given the female advantage in verbal memory. METHODS: We calculated sex-specific and typical norms/cut scores (age and education specific) for impairment on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. Norms/cut scores were applied to 453 women and 532 men from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. We compared sex differences in rates of aMCI (Jak/Bondi criteria) for sex-specific vs typical norms/cut scores. Using sex-specific cut scores as the true condition and typical cut scores as the predicted condition, we categorized participants as true positives (TPs), false positives (FPs), true negative (TNs), or false negative (FNs). In cross-sectional analyses within sex, we compared positivity rates of CSF hyperphosphorylated tau/β-amyloid (Aβ) and cortical Aβ deposition ([18F]AV45 PET) and APOE ε4 frequency among diagnostic comparison groups. RESULTS: The frequency of aMCI was higher in men when using typical norms/cut scores. Using sex-adjusted norms/cut scores led to the identification of 10% FNs (missed aMCI cases) among women and 10% FPs among men. Biomarker analyses supported the hypothesis that sex-specific diagnostic criteria improves diagnostic accuracy. Biomarkers rates were higher in FNs vs TNs and similar in FNs and TPs. Biomarker rates were lower in FPs vs TPs and similar between FPs and TNs. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that non-sex-specific aMCI diagnostic criteria led to a 20% diagnostic error rate. Accounting for sex differences in verbal memory performance may improve aMCI classification.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the use of sex-specific norms and cut scores to identify memory impairment improves diagnostic accuracy of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) compared to non-sex-specific (typical) norms/cut scores given the female advantage in verbal memory. METHODS: We calculated sex-specific and typical norms/cut scores (age and education specific) for impairment on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. Norms/cut scores were applied to 453 women and 532 men from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. We compared sex differences in rates of aMCI (Jak/Bondi criteria) for sex-specific vs typical norms/cut scores. Using sex-specific cut scores as the true condition and typical cut scores as the predicted condition, we categorized participants as true positives (TPs), false positives (FPs), true negative (TNs), or false negative (FNs). In cross-sectional analyses within sex, we compared positivity rates of CSF hyperphosphorylated tau/β-amyloid (Aβ) and cortical Aβ deposition ([18F]AV45 PET) and APOE ε4 frequency among diagnostic comparison groups. RESULTS: The frequency of aMCI was higher in men when using typical norms/cut scores. Using sex-adjusted norms/cut scores led to the identification of 10% FNs (missed aMCI cases) among women and 10% FPs among men. Biomarker analyses supported the hypothesis that sex-specific diagnostic criteria improves diagnostic accuracy. Biomarkers rates were higher in FNs vs TNs and similar in FNs and TPs. Biomarker rates were lower in FPs vs TPs and similar between FPs and TNs. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that non-sex-specific aMCI diagnostic criteria led to a 20% diagnostic error rate. Accounting for sex differences in verbal memory performance may improve aMCI classification.
Authors: Erin E Sundermann; Anat Biegon; Leah H Rubin; Richard B Lipton; Wenzhu Mowrey; Susan Landau; Pauline M Maki Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Scott C Neu; Judy Pa; Walter Kukull; Duane Beekly; Amanda Kuzma; Prabhakaran Gangadharan; Li-San Wang; Klaus Romero; Stephen P Arneric; Alberto Redolfi; Daniele Orlandi; Giovanni B Frisoni; Rhoda Au; Sherral Devine; Sanford Auerbach; Ana Espinosa; Mercè Boada; Agustín Ruiz; Sterling C Johnson; Rebecca Koscik; Jiun-Jie Wang; Wen-Chuin Hsu; Yao-Liang Chen; Arthur W Toga Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Steven D Shirk; Meghan B Mitchell; Lynn W Shaughnessy; Janet C Sherman; Joseph J Locascio; Sandra Weintraub; Alireza Atri Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Katherine A Lin; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Bharath G Rathakrishnan; David M Marks; Jeffrey R Petrella; P Murali Doraiswamy Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2015-09-01
Authors: Margaret Abraham; Michael Seidenberg; Dana A Kelly; Kristy A Nielson; John L Woodard; J Carson Smith; Sally Durgerian; Stephen M Rao Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Maurizio Bergamino; Elizabeth G Keeling; Leslie C Baxter; Nicholas J Sisco; Ryan R Walsh; Ashley M Stokes Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.160
Authors: Ricardo Bruña; Fernando Maestú; David López-Sanz; Anto Bagic; Ann D Cohen; Yue-Fang Chang; Yu Cheng; Jack Doman; Ted Huppert; Tae Kim; Rebecca E Roush; Beth E Snitz; James T Becker Journal: Brain Connect Date: 2021-11-02
Authors: Michelle M Mielke; Neelum T Aggarwal; Clara Vila-Castelar; Puja Agarwal; Eider M Arenaza-Urquijo; Benjamin Brett; Anna Brugulat-Serrat; Lyndsey E DuBose; Willem S Eikelboom; Jason Flatt; Nancy S Foldi; Sanne Franzen; Paola Gilsanz; Wei Li; Alison J McManus; Debora Melo van Lent; Sadaf Arefi Milani; C Elizabeth Shaaban; Shana D Stites; Erin Sundermann; Vidyani Suryadevara; Jean-Francoise Trani; Arlener D Turner; Jet M J Vonk; Yakeel T Quiroz; Ganesh M Babulal Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Franck Mauvais-Jarvis; Noel Bairey Merz; Peter J Barnes; Roberta D Brinton; Juan-Jesus Carrero; Dawn L DeMeo; Geert J De Vries; C Neill Epperson; Ramaswamy Govindan; Sabra L Klein; Amedeo Lonardo; Pauline M Maki; Louise D McCullough; Vera Regitz-Zagrosek; Judith G Regensteiner; Joshua B Rubin; Kathryn Sandberg; Ayako Suzuki Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-08-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nikki H Stricker; Teresa J Christianson; Emily S Lundt; Eva C Alden; Mary M Machulda; Julie A Fields; Walter K Kremers; Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; Michelle M Mielke; Ronald C Petersen Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Lauren Edwards; Renaud La Joie; Leonardo Iaccarino; Amelia Strom; Suzanne L Baker; Kaitlin B Casaletto; Yann Cobigo; Harli Grant; Minseon Kim; Joel H Kramer; Taylor J Mellinger; Julie Pham; Katherine L Possin; Howard J Rosen; David N Soleimani-Meigooni; Amy Wolf; Bruce L Miller; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 5.133