Eva C Alden1, Shehroo B Pudumjee1, Emily S Lundt2, Sabrina M Albertson2, Mary M Machulda1, Walter K Kremers2, Clifford R Jack3, David S Knopman4,5, Ronald C Petersen5, Michelle M Mielke4,5, Nikki H Stricker1. 1. Division of Neurocognitive Disorders, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 2. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 4. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a population-based sample. METHODS: Participants included adults ages 50+ classified as cognitively unimpaired (CU, n = 2866) or MCI (n = 226), and a subset with amyloid (A) and tau (T) positron emission tomography who were AD biomarker negative (A-T-) or had prodromal AD (A+T+). RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy of the Learning/Working Memory Composite (Lrn/WM) for discriminating all CU and MCI was moderate (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.75), but improved when discriminating CU A-T- and MCI A+T+ (AUC = 0.93) and when differentiating MCI participants without AD biomarkers from those with prodromal AD (AUC = 0.86). Conventional cut-offs yielded lower than expected sensitivity for both MCI (38%) and prodromal AD (73%). DISCUSSION: Clinical utility of the CBB for detecting MCI in a population-based sample is lower than expected. Caution is needed when using currently available CBB normative data for clinical interpretation.
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a population-based sample. METHODS: Participants included adults ages 50+ classified as cognitively unimpaired (CU, n = 2866) or MCI (n = 226), and a subset with amyloid (A) and tau (T) positron emission tomography who were AD biomarker negative (A-T-) or had prodromal AD (A+T+). RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy of the Learning/Working Memory Composite (Lrn/WM) for discriminating all CU and MCI was moderate (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.75), but improved when discriminating CU A-T- and MCI A+T+ (AUC = 0.93) and when differentiating MCI participants without AD biomarkers from those with prodromal AD (AUC = 0.86). Conventional cut-offs yielded lower than expected sensitivity for both MCI (38%) and prodromal AD (73%). DISCUSSION: Clinical utility of the CBB for detecting MCI in a population-based sample is lower than expected. Caution is needed when using currently available CBB normative data for clinical interpretation.
Keywords:
Alzheimer's disease; amyloid; cognigram; memory; mild cognitive impairment; neuropsychology; one back; one card learning; sensitivity and specificity; tau
Authors: Paul Maruff; Elizabeth Thomas; Lucette Cysique; Bruce Brew; Alex Collie; Peter Snyder; Robert H Pietrzak Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Rosebud O Roberts; David S Knopman; Michelle M Mielke; Ruth H Cha; V Shane Pankratz; Teresa J H Christianson; Yonas E Geda; Bradley F Boeve; Robert J Ivnik; Eric G Tangalos; Walter A Rocca; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Prashanthi Vemuri; Val J Lowe; David S Knopman; Matthew L Senjem; Bradley J Kemp; Christopher G Schwarz; Scott A Przybelski; Mary M Machulda; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2016-12-21
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Terry M Therneau; Stephen D Weigand; Heather J Wiste; David S Knopman; Prashanthi Vemuri; Val J Lowe; Michelle M Mielke; Rosebud O Roberts; Mary M Machulda; Jonathan Graff-Radford; David T Jones; Christopher G Schwarz; Jeffrey L Gunter; Matthew L Senjem; Walter A Rocca; Ronald C Petersen Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: M N Sabbagh; M Boada; S Borson; M Chilukuri; B Dubois; J Ingram; A Iwata; A P Porsteinsson; K L Possin; G D Rabinovici; B Vellas; S Chao; A Vergallo; H Hampel Journal: J Prev Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020
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