Dataset Information

External validation of change formulae in neuropsychology with neuroimaging biomarkers: A methodological recommendation and preliminary clinical data.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Within neuropsychology, a number of mathematical formulae (e.g. reliable change index, standardized regression based) have been used to determine if change across time has reliably occurred. When these formulae have been compared, they often produce different results, but 'different' results do not necessarily indicate which formulae are 'best.' The current study sought to further our understanding of change formulae by comparing them to clinically relevant external criteria (amyloid deposition and hippocampal volume). METHOD:In a sample of 25 older adults with varying levels of cognitive intactness, participants were tested twice across one week with a brief cognitive battery. Seven different change scores were calculated for each participant. An amyloid PET scan (to get a composite of amyloid deposition) and an MRI (to get hippocampal volume) were also obtained. RESULTS:Deviation-based change formulae (e.g. simple discrepancy score, reliable change index with or without correction for practice effects) were all identical in their relationship to the two neuroimaging biomarkers, and all were non-significant. Conversely, regression-based change formulae (e.g. simple and complex indices) showed stronger relationships to amyloid deposition and hippocampal volume. CONCLUSIONS:These results highlight the need for external validation of the various change formulae used by neuropsychologists in clinical settings and research projects. The findings also preliminarily suggest that regression-based change formulae may be more relevant than deviation-based change formulae in this context.

SUBMITTER: Duff K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6298853 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

External validation of change formulae in neuropsychology with neuroimaging biomarkers: A methodological recommendation and preliminary clinical data.

Duff Kevin K Suhrie Kayla R KR Dalley Bonnie C A BCA Anderson Jeffrey S JS Hoffman John M JM

The Clinical neuropsychologist 20180608 3

<h4>Objective</h4>Within neuropsychology, a number of mathematical formulae (e.g. reliable change index, standardized regression based) have been used to determine if change across time has reliably occurred. When these formulae have been compared, they often produce different results, but 'different' results do not necessarily indicate which formulae are 'best.' The current study sought to further our understanding of change formulae by comparing them to clinically relevant external criteria (a ...[more]

PMID: 29884099

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBefore considering whether to use a multivariable (diagnostic or prognostic) prediction model, it is essential that its performance be evaluated in data that were not used to develop the model (referred to as external validation). We critically appraised the methodological conduct and reporting of external validation studies of multivariable prediction models.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of articles describing some form of external validation of one or more multivariable prediction models indexed in PubMed core clinical journals published in 2010. Study data were extracted in duplicate on design, sample size, handling of missing data, reference to the original study developing the prediction models and predictive performance measures.Results11,826 articles were identified and 78 were included for full review, which described the evaluation of 120 prediction models. in participant data that were not used to develop the model. Thirty-three articles described both the development of a prediction model and an evaluation of its performance on a separate dataset, and 45 articles described only the evaluation of an existing published prediction model on another dataset. Fifty-seven percent of the prediction models were presented and evaluated as simplified scoring systems. Sixteen percent of articles failed to report the number of outcome events in the validation datasets. Fifty-four percent of studies made no explicit mention of missing data. Sixty-seven percent did not report evaluating model calibration whilst most studies evaluated model discrimination. It was often unclear whether the reported performance measures were for the full regression model or for the simplified models.ConclusionsThe vast majority of studies describing some form of external validation of a multivariable prediction model were poorly reported with key details frequently not presented. The validation studies were characterised by poor design, inappropriate handling and acknowledgement of missing data and one of the most key performance measures of prediction models i.e. calibration often omitted from the publication. It may therefore not be surprising that an overwhelming majority of developed prediction models are not used in practice, when there is a dearth of well-conducted and clearly reported (external validation) studies describing their performance on independent participant data.

Project description:Background: From time to time, neuroimaging research findings receive press coverage and attention by the general public. Scientific articles therefore should be written in a readable manner to facilitate knowledge translation and dissemination. However, no published readability report on neuroimaging articles like those published in education, medical and marketing journals is available. As a start, this study therefore aimed to evaluate the readability of the most-cited neuroimaging articles. Methods: The 100 most-cited articles in neuroimaging identified in a recent study by Kim et al. (2016) were evaluated. Headings, mathematical equations, tables, figures, footnotes, appendices, and reference lists were trimmed from the articles. The rest was processed for number of characters, words and sentences. Five readability indices that indicate the school grade appropriate for that reading difficulty (Automated Readability Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog index and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index) were computed. An average reading grade level (AGL) was calculated by taking the mean of these five indices. The Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score was also computed. The readability of the trimmed abstracts and full texts was evaluated against number of authors, country of corresponding author, total citation count, normalized citation count, article type, publication year, impact factor of the year published and type of journal. Results: Mean AGL ± standard deviation (SD) of the trimmed abstracts and full texts were 17.15 ± 2.81 (college graduate level) and 14.22 ± 1.66 (college level) respectively. Mean FRE score ± SD of the abstracts and full texts were 15.70 ± 14.11 (college graduate level) and 32.11 ± 8.56 (college level) respectively. Both items indicated that the full texts were significantly more readable than the abstracts (p < 0.001). Abstract readability was not associated with any factors under investigation. ANCOVAs showed that review/meta-analysis (mean AGL ± SD: 16.0 ± 1.4) and higher impact factor significantly associated with lower readability of the trimmed full texts surveyed. Conclusion: Concerning the 100 most-cited articles in neuroimaging, the full text appears to be more readable than the abstracts. Experimental articles and methodology papers were more readable than reviews/meta-analyses. Articles published in journals with higher impact factors were less readable.

Project description:BackgroundAlzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) are the two most common forms of neurodegenerative dementia. Although both of them have well-established diagnostic criteria, achieving early diagnosis remains challenging. Here, we aimed to make the differential diagnosis of AD and FTLD from clinical, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging features.Materials and methodsIn this retrospective study, we selected 95 patients with PET-CT defined AD and 106 patients with PET-CT/biomarker-defined FTLD. We performed structured chart examination to collect clinical data and ascertain clinical features. A series of neuropsychological scales were used to assess the neuropsychological characteristics of patients. Automatic tissue segmentation of brain by Dr. Brain tool was used to collect multi-parameter volumetric measurements from different brain areas. All patients' structural neuroimage data were analyzed to obtain brain structure and white matter hyperintensities (WMH) quantitative data.ResultsThe prevalence of vascular disease associated factors was higher in AD patients than that in FTLD group. 56.84% of patients with AD carried at least one APOE ε4 allele, which is much high than that in FTLD patients. The first symptoms of AD patients were mostly cognitive impairment rather than behavioral abnormalities. In contrast, behavioral abnormalities were the prominent early manifestations of FTLD, and few patients may be accompanied by memory impairment and motor symptoms. In direct comparison, patients with AD had slightly more posterior lesions and less frontal atrophy, whereas patients with FTLD had more frontotemporal atrophy and less posterior lesions. The WMH burden of AD was significantly higher, especially in cortical areas, while the WMH burden of FTLD was higher in periventricular areas.ConclusionThese results indicate that dynamic evaluation of cognitive function, behavioral and psychological symptoms, and multimodal neuroimaging are helpful for the early diagnosis and differentiation between AD and FTLD.

Project description:Background: Bipolar Disorder (BD) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) have clinically been evolving as separate disorders, though there is still debate on the nosological valence of both conditions, their interaction in terms of co-morbidity or disorder spectrum and their distinct pathophysiology. Objective: The objective of this review is to summarize evidence regarding clinical features, neuropsychological performance and neuroimaging findings from cross-diagnostic studies comparing BD and BPD, to further caracterize their complex interplay. Methods: Using PubMed, PsycINFO and TripDataBase, we conducted a systematic literature search based on PRISMA guidelines of studies published from January 1980 to September 2019 which directly compared BD and BPD. Results: A total of 28 studies comparing BD and BPD were included: 19 compared clinical features, 6 neuropsychological performance and three neuroimaging abnormalities. Depressive symptoms have an earlier onset in BPD than BD. BD patients present more mixed or manic symptoms, with BD-I differing from BPD in manic phases. BPD patients show more negative attitudes toward others and self, more conflictive interpersonal relationships, and more maladaptive regulation strategies in affective instability with separate pathways. Impulsivity seems more a trait in BPD rather than a state as in BD. Otherwise, BD and BPD overlap in depressive and anxious symptoms, dysphoria, various abnormal temperamental traits, suicidal ideation, and childhood trauma. Both disorders differ and share deficits in neuropsychological and neuroimaging findings. Conclusion: Clinical data provide evidence of overlapping features in both disorders, with most of those shared symptoms being more persistent and intense in BPD. Thus, categorical classifications should be compared to dimensional approaches in transdiagnostic studies investigating BPD features in BD regarding their respective explanatory power for individual trajectories. Systematic Review Registration: The search strategy was pre-registered in PROSPERO: CRD42018100268.

Dataset Information

External validation of change formulae in neuropsychology with neuroimaging biomarkers: A methodological recommendation and preliminary clinical data.

Publications

External validation of change formulae in neuropsychology with neuroimaging biomarkers: A methodological recommendation and preliminary clinical data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets