Andrew M Kiselica1, Jared F Benge2. 1. Department of Health Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Texas - Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our understanding of Alzheimer's disease may be improved by harmonizing data from large cohort studies of older adults. Differences in the way clinical conditions, like mild cognitive impairment (MCI), are diagnosed may lead to variability among participants that share the same diagnostic label. This variability presents a challenge for cohort harmonization and may lead to inconsistency in research findings. Little research to date has explored the equivalence of the diagnostic label of MCI across 2 of the largest and most influential cohort studies in the USA: the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). METHODS: Participants with MCI due to presumed Alzheimer's disease from the NACC Uniform Data Set (n = 789) and ADNI (n = 131) were compared on demographic, psychological, and functional variables, as well as on an abbreviated neuropsychological battery common to the 2 data sets. RESULTS: Though similar in terms of age, education, and functional status, the NACC sample was more diverse (17.4% non-White participants vs. 7.6% in ADNI; χ2 = 7.923, p = 0.005) and tended to perform worse on some cognitive tests. In particular, participants diagnosed with MCI in NACC were more likely to have clinically significant impairments on language measures (26.36-31.18%) than MCI participants in ADNI (16.03-19.85%). DISCUSSION: The current findings suggest important differences in cognitive performances between 2 large MCI cohorts, likely reflective of differences in diagnostic criteria used in these 2 studies, as well as differences in sample compositions. Such diagnostic heterogeneity may make harmonizing data across these cohorts challenging. However, application of shared psychometric criteria across studies may lead to closer equivalence of MCI groups. Such approaches could pave the way for cohort harmonization and enable "big data" analytic approaches to understanding Alzhei-mer's to be developed.
INTRODUCTION: Our understanding of Alzheimer's disease may be improved by harmonizing data from large cohort studies of older adults. Differences in the way clinical conditions, like mild cognitive impairment (MCI), are diagnosed may lead to variability among participants that share the same diagnostic label. This variability presents a challenge for cohort harmonization and may lead to inconsistency in research findings. Little research to date has explored the equivalence of the diagnostic label of MCI across 2 of the largest and most influential cohort studies in the USA: the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). METHODS: Participants with MCI due to presumed Alzheimer's disease from the NACC Uniform Data Set (n = 789) and ADNI (n = 131) were compared on demographic, psychological, and functional variables, as well as on an abbreviated neuropsychological battery common to the 2 data sets. RESULTS: Though similar in terms of age, education, and functional status, the NACC sample was more diverse (17.4% non-White participants vs. 7.6% in ADNI; χ2 = 7.923, p = 0.005) and tended to perform worse on some cognitive tests. In particular, participants diagnosed with MCI in NACC were more likely to have clinically significant impairments on language measures (26.36-31.18%) than MCI participants in ADNI (16.03-19.85%). DISCUSSION: The current findings suggest important differences in cognitive performances between 2 large MCI cohorts, likely reflective of differences in diagnostic criteria used in these 2 studies, as well as differences in sample compositions. Such diagnostic heterogeneity may make harmonizing data across these cohorts challenging. However, application of shared psychometric criteria across studies may lead to closer equivalence of MCI groups. Such approaches could pave the way for cohort harmonization and enable "big data" analytic approaches to understanding Alzhei-mer's to be developed.
Authors: Marilyn S Albert; Steven T DeKosky; Dennis Dickson; Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Nick C Fox; Anthony Gamst; David M Holtzman; William J Jagust; Ronald C Petersen; Peter J Snyder; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Sarah E Monsell; Hiroko H Dodge; Xiao-Hua Zhou; Yunqi Bu; Lilah M Besser; Charles Mock; Stephen E Hawes; Walter A Kukull; Sandra Weintraub Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2016 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: S Craft; J Newcomer; S Kanne; S Dagogo-Jack; P Cryer; Y Sheline; J Luby; A Dagogo-Jack; A Alderson Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 1996 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Amy J Jak; Sarah R Preis; Alexa S Beiser; Sudha Seshadri; Philip A Wolf; Mark W Bondi; Rhoda Au Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Beth E Snitz; Frederick W Unverzagt; Chung-Chou H Chang; Joni Vander Bilt; Sujuan Gao; Judith Saxton; Kathleen S Hall; Mary Ganguli Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 3.878
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: Erik Hessen; Marie Eckerström; Arto Nordlund; Ina Selseth Almdahl; Jacob Stålhammar; Maria Bjerke; Carl Eckerström; Mattias Göthlin; Tormod Fladby; Ivar Reinvang; Anders Wallin Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra Date: 2017-02-02
Authors: Christina G Wong; Kelsey R Thomas; Emily C Edmonds; Alexandra J Weigand; Katherine J Bangen; Joel S Eppig; Amy J Jak; Sherral A Devine; Lisa Delano-Wood; David J Libon; Steven D Edland; Rhoda Au; Mark W Bondi Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 2.959