Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Validating digital cognitive biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease
0
Zitationen
6
Autoren
2020
Jahr
Abstract
Abstract Background This study sought to validate a pragmatic method to predict impending cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients, prior to the development of hallmark symptoms. The method, a Hierarchical Bayesian Cognitive Process (HBCP) model, uses item responses to a wordlist memory (WLM) test to generate digital cognitive biomarkers (Table 1). We replicated our earlier study, performed on AVLT item response data from Mayo Clinic, by applying the HBCP model to distinguish non‐decliner and decliner groups of normal subjects at baseline from a novel dataset, the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), with a distinct WLM test, ADAS‐Cog. Method From the ADNI dataset, we classified non‐decliner subjects (n = 442) as those whose diagnosis remained normal for 3 or more years after normal baseline assessment and decliner subjects (n = 61) as those who developed amnestic MCI or AD within 3 years of normal baseline assessment. Three analytic approaches were compared: 1) Traditional summary scores per ADAS‐Cog task were assessed for group differences with a commonly‐used statistical approach, logistic regression; 2) summary scores were assessed with a Bayesian modeling approach; and 3) item response data were assessed with our HBCP model, generating digital cognitive biomarkers. Result Logistic regression of summary scores generated β coefficients (Table 2) that did not significantly discriminate between groups. Bayes Factor assessment of fitted Gaussian distributions to the per‐task group recall by summary score measurement provided moderate evidence that the groups were measurably the same ( BF sd = 3.4, 3.1, 2.9, and 1.4, respectively). The HBCP model produced posterior distributions of group differences. Bayes Factor assessment identified three with notable group differences: Immediate Retrieval from Durable Storage, L1 ( BF ds = 11.8, strong evidence), One‐shot Learning, r ( BF ds = 4.5, moderate), and Partial Learning, a ( BF ds = 2.9, weak; Figure). Conclusion The obtained strong evidence for L1 group differences represents successful replication of previous work with our HBCP model on this novel dataset. The ability to identify differences in subjects diagnosed cognitively normal at time of assessment demonstrates the HBCP model’s advantage over summary score assessment and its applicability for detection of impending cognitive decline in asymptomatic AD patients.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The Pittsburgh sleep quality index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research
1989 · 33.701 Zit.
Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease
1984 · 27.897 Zit.
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment
2005 · 24.576 Zit.
Special Care Units and Traditional Care in Dementia: Relationship with Behavior, Cognition, Functional Status and Quality of Life - A Review
2013 · 20.643 Zit.
The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging‐Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease
2011 · 18.511 Zit.