Methods to crosswalk between cognitive test scores using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Cohort

IF 11.1 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Alzheimer's & Dementia Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1002/alz.14597
Sarah F. Ackley, Jingxuan Wang, Ruijia Chen, Tanisha G. Hill-Jarrett, L. Paloma Rojas-Saunero, Andrew Stokes, Sachin J. Shah, M. Maria Glymour, for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
{"title":"Methods to crosswalk between cognitive test scores using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Cohort","authors":"Sarah F. Ackley,&nbsp;Jingxuan Wang,&nbsp;Ruijia Chen,&nbsp;Tanisha G. Hill-Jarrett,&nbsp;L. Paloma Rojas-Saunero,&nbsp;Andrew Stokes,&nbsp;Sachin J. Shah,&nbsp;M. Maria Glymour,&nbsp;for the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative","doi":"10.1002/alz.14597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> INTRODUCTION</h3>\n \n <p>Studies use multiple different instruments to measure dementia-related outcomes, making head-to-head comparisons of interventions difficult.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> METHODS</h3>\n \n <p>To address this gap, we developed two methods to crosswalk estimated treatment effects on cognitive outcomes that are flexible, broadly applicable, and do not rely on strong distributional assumptions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> RESULTS</h3>\n \n <p>We present two methods to crosswalk effect estimates using one measure to estimates using another measure, illustrated with global cognitive measures from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Specifically, we develop crosswalks for the following measures and associated change scores over time: the clinical dementia rating scale sum of box (CDR-SB), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. Finally, a setting in which crosswalking is not appropriate is illustrated with plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) concentration and global cognitive measures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> DISCUSSION</h3>\n \n <p>Given the inconsistent collection and reporting of dementia and cognitive outcomes across studies, these crosswalking methods offer a valuable approach to harmonizing and comparing results reported on different scales.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Highlights</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Developed methods to crosswalk from one cognitive outcome to another in studies of dementia interventions.</li>\n \n <li>Methods illustrated using combinations of global cognitive tests: the CDR-SB, MoCA, and MMSE.</li>\n \n <li>Illustrates scenarios where crosswalking may not be appropriate for certain combinations of measures.</li>\n \n <li>Crosswalking methods support comparison of interventions with accurate error propagation.</li>\n \n <li>Facilitates inclusion of more studies in meta-analyses by increasing data comparability.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":7471,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer's & Dementia","volume":"21 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/alz.14597","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer's & Dementia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz.14597","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Studies use multiple different instruments to measure dementia-related outcomes, making head-to-head comparisons of interventions difficult.

METHODS

To address this gap, we developed two methods to crosswalk estimated treatment effects on cognitive outcomes that are flexible, broadly applicable, and do not rely on strong distributional assumptions.

RESULTS

We present two methods to crosswalk effect estimates using one measure to estimates using another measure, illustrated with global cognitive measures from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Specifically, we develop crosswalks for the following measures and associated change scores over time: the clinical dementia rating scale sum of box (CDR-SB), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. Finally, a setting in which crosswalking is not appropriate is illustrated with plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) concentration and global cognitive measures.

DISCUSSION

Given the inconsistent collection and reporting of dementia and cognitive outcomes across studies, these crosswalking methods offer a valuable approach to harmonizing and comparing results reported on different scales.

Highlights

  • Developed methods to crosswalk from one cognitive outcome to another in studies of dementia interventions.
  • Methods illustrated using combinations of global cognitive tests: the CDR-SB, MoCA, and MMSE.
  • Illustrates scenarios where crosswalking may not be appropriate for certain combinations of measures.
  • Crosswalking methods support comparison of interventions with accurate error propagation.
  • Facilitates inclusion of more studies in meta-analyses by increasing data comparability.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
利用阿尔茨海默氏症神经影像队列数据实现认知测试分数之间交叉的方法
研究使用多种不同的工具来测量痴呆症相关的结果,使得干预措施的正面比较变得困难。为了解决这一差距,我们开发了两种方法来估算治疗对认知结果的影响,这两种方法灵活、广泛适用,并且不依赖于强分布假设。我们提出了两种方法来估计人行横道的影响,使用一种测量方法估计另一种测量方法,用阿尔茨海默病神经影像学倡议(ADNI)的全球认知测量方法来说明。具体地说,我们开发了以下测量方法和相关的随时间变化分数:临床痴呆评定量表方框和(CDR-SB),蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)和迷你精神状态检查(MMSE)分数。最后,通过血浆磷酸化tau (p-tau)浓度和整体认知测量来说明不适合人行横道的环境。鉴于不同研究中对痴呆和认知结果的收集和报告不一致,这些人行横道的方法提供了一种有价值的方法来协调和比较不同尺度上报告的结果。在痴呆干预研究中,发展了从一种认知结果过渡到另一种认知结果的方法。方法说明使用整体认知测试的组合:CDR-SB, MoCA和MMSE。说明人行横道可能不适合某些措施组合的情况。人行横道方法支持比较干预与准确的误差传播。通过增加数据的可比性,促进将更多的研究纳入元分析。
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
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Alzheimer's & Dementia 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
299
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Alzheimer's & Dementia is a peer-reviewed journal that aims to bridge knowledge gaps in dementia research by covering the entire spectrum, from basic science to clinical trials to social and behavioral investigations. It provides a platform for rapid communication of new findings and ideas, optimal translation of research into practical applications, increasing knowledge across diverse disciplines for early detection, diagnosis, and intervention, and identifying promising new research directions. In July 2008, Alzheimer's & Dementia was accepted for indexing by MEDLINE, recognizing its scientific merit and contribution to Alzheimer's research.
期刊最新文献
The cholinergic system exerts opposing effects on memory at different stages of disease progression in Alzheimer's and Down syndrome model systems The Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis and Plasma Phospho‐Tau217 (ADAPT) study stage 1: Validating clinical cut‐points against CSF and amyloid PET Factors impacting survival in individuals with Down syndrome-associated Alzheimer's disease Plasma p-tau217 predicts PET-based pathological staging for precision Alzheimer disease assessment Astrocytic PYGM attenuates tau pathology by promoting lactate-mediated neuroprotection
×
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:604180095
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