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.
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.