TICS-M scores in an oldest-old normative cohort identified by computable phenotype.

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2024-07-12 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2024.2374894
Gelan Ying, Ambar Perez-Lao, Tamare Adrien, Demetrius Maraganore, David Marra, Glenn Smith
{"title":"TICS-M scores in an oldest-old normative cohort identified by computable phenotype.","authors":"Gelan Ying, Ambar Perez-Lao, Tamare Adrien, Demetrius Maraganore, David Marra, Glenn Smith","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2024.2374894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To (1) examine the distribution of Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status modified (TICS-m) scores in oldest-old individuals (age 85 and above) identified as cognitively healthy by a previously validated electronic health records-based computable phenotype (CP) and (2) to compare different cutoff scores for cognitive impairment in this population. <b>Method:</b> CP identified 24,024 persons, 470 were contacted and 252 consented and completed the assessment. Associations of TICS-m score with age, sex, and educational categories (<10 years, 11-15 years, and >16 years) were examined. The number of participants perceived as impaired was studied with commonly used cutoff scores (27-31). <b>Results:</b> TICS-m score ranged from 18 to 44 with a mean of 32.6 (SD = 4.7) in older adults aged 85-99 years old. A linear regression model including (range-restricted) age, education, and sex, showed beta estimates comparable to previous findings. Different cutoff scores (27 to 31) generated slightly lower MCI and dementia prevalence rates of participants meeting the criteria for the impairments than studies of younger elderly using traditional recruitment methods. <b>Conclusions:</b> The use of validated computable phenotype to identify a normative cohort generated a normative distribution for the TICS-m consistent with prior findings from more effortful approaches to cohort identification and established expected TICS-m performance in the oldest-old population.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2374894","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To (1) examine the distribution of Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status modified (TICS-m) scores in oldest-old individuals (age 85 and above) identified as cognitively healthy by a previously validated electronic health records-based computable phenotype (CP) and (2) to compare different cutoff scores for cognitive impairment in this population. Method: CP identified 24,024 persons, 470 were contacted and 252 consented and completed the assessment. Associations of TICS-m score with age, sex, and educational categories (<10 years, 11-15 years, and >16 years) were examined. The number of participants perceived as impaired was studied with commonly used cutoff scores (27-31). Results: TICS-m score ranged from 18 to 44 with a mean of 32.6 (SD = 4.7) in older adults aged 85-99 years old. A linear regression model including (range-restricted) age, education, and sex, showed beta estimates comparable to previous findings. Different cutoff scores (27 to 31) generated slightly lower MCI and dementia prevalence rates of participants meeting the criteria for the impairments than studies of younger elderly using traditional recruitment methods. Conclusions: The use of validated computable phenotype to identify a normative cohort generated a normative distribution for the TICS-m consistent with prior findings from more effortful approaches to cohort identification and established expected TICS-m performance in the oldest-old population.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过可计算表型确定的最年长常模队列中的 TICS-M 分数。
目的目的:(1) 研究通过先前验证的基于电子健康记录的可计算表型(CP)确定为认知健康的高龄老人(85 岁及以上)的认知状况电话访谈(TICS-m)得分分布情况;(2) 比较该人群中认知障碍的不同临界值。方法:可计算表型确定了 24,024 人,联系了 470 人,252 人同意并完成了评估。研究了 TICS-m 评分与年龄、性别和教育类别(16 岁)的关系。根据常用的临界分数(27-31),研究了被认为能力受损的参与者人数。研究结果在 85-99 岁的老年人中,TICS-m 的得分范围为 18-44 分,平均值为 32.6(SD = 4.7)。一个包括年龄、教育程度和性别(范围受限)的线性回归模型显示,贝塔估计值与之前的研究结果相当。与采用传统招募方法对年轻老年人进行的研究相比,不同的截断分数(27 至 31 分)所产生的符合损伤标准的 MCI 和痴呆症患病率略低。结论:使用经过验证的可计算表型来识别标准队列,为TICS-m生成的标准分布与之前通过更费力的队列识别方法得出的结果一致,并确定了TICS-m在最年长人群中的预期表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Neuropsychologist
Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.80%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is considered.
期刊最新文献
Development of a Symptom Validity Index for the Beck Anxiety Inventory. Interpreting the direct- and derived-Trail Making Test scores in Argentinian children: regression-based norms, convergent validity, test-retest reliability, and practice effects. Enhanced detection of suboptimal effort in psychoeducational assessments for dyslexia. Neuropsychological normative standards for late career physicians. Naturalistic assessment of everyday multitasking in Parkinson's disease with and without mild cognitive impairment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1