梅奥常模研究:基于回归的常模数据,用于远程自我管理史翠克学习跨度、符号测验和梅奥驾驶测验筛选电池的综合测试,并在轻度认知障碍和痴呆症患者中进行验证

Nikki Horne Stricker, Ryan D Frank, Elizabeth A Boots, Winnie Z Fan, Teresa J Christianson, Walter K Kremers, John L Stricker, Mary M Machulda, Julie A Fields, John A Lucas, Jason Hassenstab, Paula A Aduen, Gregory S Day, Neill R Graff-Radford, Clifford R Jack, Jonathan Graff-Radford, Ronald C Petersen
{"title":"梅奥常模研究:基于回归的常模数据,用于远程自我管理史翠克学习跨度、符号测验和梅奥驾驶测验筛选电池的综合测试,并在轻度认知障碍和痴呆症患者中进行验证","authors":"Nikki Horne Stricker, Ryan D Frank, Elizabeth A Boots, Winnie Z Fan, Teresa J Christianson, Walter K Kremers, John L Stricker, Mary M Machulda, Julie A Fields, John A Lucas, Jason Hassenstab, Paula A Aduen, Gregory S Day, Neill R Graff-Radford, Clifford R Jack, Jonathan Graff-Radford, Ronald C Petersen","doi":"10.1101/2024.09.14.24313641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Few normative data for unsupervised, remotely-administered computerized cognitive measures are available. We examined variables to include in normative models for Mayo Test Drive (a multi-device remote cognitive assessment platform) measures, developed normative data, and validated the norms. Method: 1240 Cognitively Unimpaired (CU) adults ages 32-100-years (96% white) from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo Alzheimer Disease Research Center with Clinical Dementia Rating of 0 were included. We converted raw scores to normalized scaled scores and derived regression-based normative data adjusting for age, age2, sex and education (base model); alternative norms are also provided (age+age2+sex; age+age2). We assessed additional terms using an a priori cut-off of 1% variance improvement above the base model. We examined low test performance rates (<-1 standard deviation) in independent validation samples (n=167 CU, n=64 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), n=14 dementia). Rates were significantly different when 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include the expected 14.7% base rate. Results: No model terms met the a priori cut-off beyond the base model, including device type, response input source (e.g., mouse, etc.) or session interference. Norms showed expected low performance rates in CU and greater rates of low performance in MCI and dementia in independent validation samples.\nConclusion: Typical normative models appear appropriate for remote self-administered MTD measures and are sensitive to cognitive impairment. Device type and response input source did not explain enough variance for inclusion in normative models but are important for individual-level interpretation. Future work will increase inclusion of individuals from under-represented groups.","PeriodicalId":501388,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mayo Normative Studies: regression-based normative data for remote self-administration of the Stricker Learning Span, Symbols Test and Mayo Test Drive Screening Battery Composite and validation in individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment and dementia\",\"authors\":\"Nikki Horne Stricker, Ryan D Frank, Elizabeth A Boots, Winnie Z Fan, Teresa J Christianson, Walter K Kremers, John L Stricker, Mary M Machulda, Julie A Fields, John A Lucas, Jason Hassenstab, Paula A Aduen, Gregory S Day, Neill R Graff-Radford, Clifford R Jack, Jonathan Graff-Radford, Ronald C Petersen\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.09.14.24313641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: Few normative data for unsupervised, remotely-administered computerized cognitive measures are available. We examined variables to include in normative models for Mayo Test Drive (a multi-device remote cognitive assessment platform) measures, developed normative data, and validated the norms. Method: 1240 Cognitively Unimpaired (CU) adults ages 32-100-years (96% white) from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo Alzheimer Disease Research Center with Clinical Dementia Rating of 0 were included. We converted raw scores to normalized scaled scores and derived regression-based normative data adjusting for age, age2, sex and education (base model); alternative norms are also provided (age+age2+sex; age+age2). We assessed additional terms using an a priori cut-off of 1% variance improvement above the base model. We examined low test performance rates (<-1 standard deviation) in independent validation samples (n=167 CU, n=64 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), n=14 dementia). Rates were significantly different when 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include the expected 14.7% base rate. Results: No model terms met the a priori cut-off beyond the base model, including device type, response input source (e.g., mouse, etc.) or session interference. Norms showed expected low performance rates in CU and greater rates of low performance in MCI and dementia in independent validation samples.\\nConclusion: Typical normative models appear appropriate for remote self-administered MTD measures and are sensitive to cognitive impairment. Device type and response input source did not explain enough variance for inclusion in normative models but are important for individual-level interpretation. Future work will increase inclusion of individuals from under-represented groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.24313641\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.24313641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:目前几乎没有无监督远程计算机认知测量的标准数据。我们研究了梅奥 Test Drive(一种多设备远程认知评估平台)测量标准模型中应包含的变量,开发了标准数据,并对标准进行了验证。方法:研究对象包括梅奥诊所老龄化研究和梅奥阿尔茨海默病研究中心的 1240 名认知功能未受损(CU)的成年人,年龄在 32-100 岁之间(96% 为白人),临床痴呆评级为 0。我们将原始分数转换为标准化的标度分数,并得出基于回归的常模数据,调整年龄、年龄2、性别和教育程度(基础模型);还提供了其他常模(年龄+年龄2+性别;年龄+年龄2)。我们采用比基础模型高 1%方差的先验临界值来评估附加项。我们检查了独立验证样本(167 个 CU、64 个轻度认知障碍 (MCI)、14 个痴呆)中的低测试表现率(-1 标准差)。当 95% 置信区间 (CI) 不包括预期的 14.7% 基准比率时,比率会有明显差异。结果:在基础模型之外,没有任何模型项达到先验截止值,包括设备类型、响应输入源(如鼠标等)或会话干扰。在独立的验证样本中,常模显示出预期的 CU 低表现率,而 MCI 和痴呆症的低表现率更高:典型的常模似乎适用于远程自控 MTD 测量,并且对认知障碍很敏感。设备类型和响应输入源不足以解释纳入常模的变异,但对个体层面的解释非常重要。未来的工作将更多地纳入代表性不足群体的个体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Mayo Normative Studies: regression-based normative data for remote self-administration of the Stricker Learning Span, Symbols Test and Mayo Test Drive Screening Battery Composite and validation in individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment and dementia
Objective: Few normative data for unsupervised, remotely-administered computerized cognitive measures are available. We examined variables to include in normative models for Mayo Test Drive (a multi-device remote cognitive assessment platform) measures, developed normative data, and validated the norms. Method: 1240 Cognitively Unimpaired (CU) adults ages 32-100-years (96% white) from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo Alzheimer Disease Research Center with Clinical Dementia Rating of 0 were included. We converted raw scores to normalized scaled scores and derived regression-based normative data adjusting for age, age2, sex and education (base model); alternative norms are also provided (age+age2+sex; age+age2). We assessed additional terms using an a priori cut-off of 1% variance improvement above the base model. We examined low test performance rates (<-1 standard deviation) in independent validation samples (n=167 CU, n=64 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), n=14 dementia). Rates were significantly different when 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include the expected 14.7% base rate. Results: No model terms met the a priori cut-off beyond the base model, including device type, response input source (e.g., mouse, etc.) or session interference. Norms showed expected low performance rates in CU and greater rates of low performance in MCI and dementia in independent validation samples. Conclusion: Typical normative models appear appropriate for remote self-administered MTD measures and are sensitive to cognitive impairment. Device type and response input source did not explain enough variance for inclusion in normative models but are important for individual-level interpretation. Future work will increase inclusion of individuals from under-represented groups.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Socio-medical Factors Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders on the Kenyan Coast Relationship between blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier integrity, cardiometabolic and inflammatory factors in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders Whole-exome sequencing study of opioid dependence offers novel insights into the contributions of exome variants Mayo Normative Studies: regression-based normative data for remote self-administration of the Stricker Learning Span, Symbols Test and Mayo Test Drive Screening Battery Composite and validation in individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment and dementia EEG frontal alpha asymmetry mediates the association between maternal and child internalizing symptoms in childhood
×
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