Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in Cognitively Healthy APOE ε4 Carriers, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer's Disease: a Meta-analysis.

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1007/s11065-024-09654-2
Stephen L Aita, Victor A Del Bene, Donald L Knapp, Claire E Demming, Vasilios C Ikonomou, Tyler Owen, Ivan A Campbell, Bailey N Wagaman, Nicholas C Borgogna, Joshua E Caron, Robert M Roth, Benjamin D Hill
{"title":"Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in Cognitively Healthy APOE ε4 Carriers, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer's Disease: a Meta-analysis.","authors":"Stephen L Aita, Victor A Del Bene, Donald L Knapp, Claire E Demming, Vasilios C Ikonomou, Tyler Owen, Ivan A Campbell, Bailey N Wagaman, Nicholas C Borgogna, Joshua E Caron, Robert M Roth, Benjamin D Hill","doi":"10.1007/s11065-024-09654-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intra-individual variability (IIV) quantifies an individual's scatter in performances across a test battery (dispersion) or across reaction times within a single task (consistency). No studies have meta-analyzed the cross-sectional IIV literature in those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's dementia (AD). An additional aim of this meta-analysis was to examine IIV in APOE ε4 + healthy control (HC) samples. A systematic search strategy was applied to six databases (Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, ERIC, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) to identify studies comparing the extent of dispersion- and consistency-based cognitive IIV between clinical (MCI, AD) and HC samples. Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for our random-effects cross-sectional meta-analysis. Hedges' g was used to aggregate between-group effect sizes, with higher positive values indicating clinical > HC IIV. Meta-regression and subgroup-analyses were conducted to evaluate continuous and categorical moderator variables, respectively. Omnibus models yielded analogous moderate-strength, albeit heterogeneous, effects for dispersion and consistency (g = 0.65). Clinical severity was a robust moderator of dispersion (MCI = 0.47, AD = 1.16) and consistency (MCI = 0.51, AD = 1.31) effects. Supplemental analysis of APOE ε4 status in HCs revealed a nonsignificant trend of elevated overall (i.e., dispersion + consistency) IIV in APOE ε4 + vs. APOE ε4 - HC samples (g = 0.24). Cognitive IIV is sensitive to the presence of AD-related genetic risk as well as neurocognitive impairment across the neurocognitive disorder severity spectrum, with a graded-pattern of HC < MCI < AD samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-024-09654-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intra-individual variability (IIV) quantifies an individual's scatter in performances across a test battery (dispersion) or across reaction times within a single task (consistency). No studies have meta-analyzed the cross-sectional IIV literature in those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's dementia (AD). An additional aim of this meta-analysis was to examine IIV in APOE ε4 + healthy control (HC) samples. A systematic search strategy was applied to six databases (Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, ERIC, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) to identify studies comparing the extent of dispersion- and consistency-based cognitive IIV between clinical (MCI, AD) and HC samples. Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for our random-effects cross-sectional meta-analysis. Hedges' g was used to aggregate between-group effect sizes, with higher positive values indicating clinical > HC IIV. Meta-regression and subgroup-analyses were conducted to evaluate continuous and categorical moderator variables, respectively. Omnibus models yielded analogous moderate-strength, albeit heterogeneous, effects for dispersion and consistency (g = 0.65). Clinical severity was a robust moderator of dispersion (MCI = 0.47, AD = 1.16) and consistency (MCI = 0.51, AD = 1.31) effects. Supplemental analysis of APOE ε4 status in HCs revealed a nonsignificant trend of elevated overall (i.e., dispersion + consistency) IIV in APOE ε4 + vs. APOE ε4 - HC samples (g = 0.24). Cognitive IIV is sensitive to the presence of AD-related genetic risk as well as neurocognitive impairment across the neurocognitive disorder severity spectrum, with a graded-pattern of HC < MCI < AD samples.

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
认知健康 APOE ε4 携带者、轻度认知障碍和阿尔茨海默病的认知个体内变异性:一项 Meta 分析。
个体内变异性(IIV)量化了个体在不同测试组合(分散性)或单一任务中不同反应时间(一致性)中的表现差异。目前还没有研究对轻度认知障碍(MCI)和阿尔茨海默氏症痴呆(AD)患者的横断面 IIV 文献进行荟萃分析。本荟萃分析的另一个目的是研究 APOE ε4 + 健康对照(HC)样本中的 IIV。我们在六个数据库(Academic Search Complete、PsycINFO、MEDLINE、CINAHL Complete、ERIC 和 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses)中采用了系统性检索策略,以确定比较临床样本(MCI、AD)和 HC 样本之间基于分散性和一致性的认知 IIV 程度的研究。有 35 项研究符合我们随机效应横断面荟萃分析的纳入标准。Hedges'g 用于汇总组间效应大小,正值越高表明临床 IIV > HC IIV。荟萃回归和亚组分析分别用于评估连续和分类调节变量。综合模型对分散性和一致性(g = 0.65)产生了类似的中等强度效应,尽管是异质性的。临床严重程度是分散效应(MCI = 0.47,AD = 1.16)和一致性效应(MCI = 0.51,AD = 1.31)的稳健调节因子。对高危人群中 APOE ε4 状态的补充分析表明,APOE ε4 + 与 APOE ε4 - 高危人群样本相比,总体(即分散性 + 一致性)IIV 呈不显著升高趋势(g = 0.24)。认知 IIV 对与 AD 相关的遗传风险以及神经认知障碍严重程度范围内的神经认知障碍的存在非常敏感,其分级模式为 HC
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
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
期刊最新文献
Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in Cognitively Healthy APOE ε4 Carriers, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer's Disease: a Meta-analysis. Measurement Error and Methodologic Issues in Analyses of the Proportion of Variance Explained in Cognition. Implementation of Cognitive (Neuropsychological) Interventions for Older Adults in Clinical or Community Settings: A Scoping Review. Verbal and Spatial Working Memory Capacity in Blind Adults and the Possible Influence of Age at Blindness Onset: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reliability of Theory of Mind Tasks in Schizophrenia, ASD, and Nonclinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis.
×
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