External validation of change formulae in neuropsychology with neuroimaging biomarkers: A methodological recommendation and preliminary clinical data.
External validation of change formulae in neuropsychology with neuroimaging biomarkers: A methodological recommendation and preliminary clinical data.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13854046.2018.1484518
复制
发表时间：
2019-04
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hoffman JM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Duff K;Suhrie KR;Dalley BCA;Anderson JS;Hoffman JM
在神经心理学中，已经使用了许多数学公式(例如，可靠的变化指数、基于标准化回归的)来确定随着时间的变化是否已经可靠地发生。当对这些公式进行比较时，它们通常会产生不同的结果，但“不同”的结果并不一定表明哪些公式是“最好的”。目前的研究试图通过将变化公式与临床相关的外部标准(淀粉样蛋白沉积和海马体体积)进行比较来加深我们对变化公式的理解。在25名认知完整程度不同的老年人的样本中，参与者在一周内接受了两次简短的认知电池测试。为每个参与者计算了七个不同的变化分数。还进行了淀粉样蛋白PET扫描(以获得淀粉样蛋白沉积的复合体)和磁共振成像(以获得海马体体积)。基于偏差的变化公式(例如，简单的差异分数、可靠的变化指数，有或没有对练习效果进行校正)与两个神经影像生物标志物的关系都是相同的，并且都不显著。相反，基于回归的变化公式(例如，简单和复杂的指数)显示出与淀粉样蛋白沉积和海马体体积更强的关系。这些结果突显了神经心理学家在临床环境和研究项目中使用的各种变化公式需要外部验证的必要性。研究结果还初步表明，在这一背景下，基于回归的变化公式可能比基于偏差的变化公式更相关。
Within neuropsychology, a number of mathematical formulae (e.g., reliable change index, standardized regression based) have been used to determine if change across time has reliably occurred. When these formulae have been compared, they often produce different results, but “different” results do not necessarily indicate which formulae are “best.” The current study sought to further our understanding of change formulae by comparing them to clinically-relevant external criteria (amyloid deposition and hippocampal volume). In a sample of 25 older adults with varying levels of cognitive intactness, participants were tested twice across one week with a brief cognitive battery. Seven different change scores were calculated for each participant. An amyloid PET scan (to get a composite of amyloid deposition) and an MRI (to get hippocampal volume) were also obtained. Deviation-based change formulae (e.g., simple discrepancy score, reliable change index with or without correction for practice effects) were all identical in their relationship to the two neuroimaging biomarkers, and all were non-significant. Conversely, regression-based change formulae (e.g., simple and complex indices) showed stronger relationships to amyloid deposition and hippocampal volume. These results highlight the need for external validation of the various change formulae used by neuropsychologists in clinical settings and research projects. The findings also preliminarily suggest that regression-based change formulae may be more relevant than deviation-based change formulae in this context.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Duff, Kevin;Lyketsos, Constantine G.;McCaffrey, Robert J.
通讯作者：
McCaffrey, Robert J.
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Blaesi, Stefan;Zehnder, Antoinette E.;Monsch, Andreas U.
通讯作者：
Monsch, Andreas U.
影响因子：
7
作者：
Duff, Kevin;Beglinger, Leigh J.;Paulsen, Jane S.
通讯作者：
Paulsen, Jane S.
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
JACOBSON, NS;TRUAX, P
通讯作者：
TRUAX, P
DOI：
10.1080/13803390600920471
发表时间：
2007-01-01
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Levine, Andrew J.;Hinkin, Charles H.;Cohen, Bruce A.
通讯作者：
Cohen, Bruce A.