Development of harmonized and co‐calibrated scores for memory, executive functioning, language, and visuospatial in the AIBL Study, ADNI, and NACC datasets. (20th December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Crane, Paul K.; Trittschuh, Emily H.; Mez, Jesse B.; Saykin, Andrew J.; Sanders, R. Elizabeth; Gibbons, Laura E; Lee, Michael L.; Scollard, Phoebe; Choi, Seo‐Eun; Rainey‐Smith, Stephanie; Chooi, Cheyenne K; Gavett, Brandon E; Maruff, Paul; Ames, David; Culhane, Jessica E.; Gauthreaux, Kathryn; Chan, Kwun Chuen Gary; Biber, Sarah; Stephens, Kari; Kukull, Walter A.; Dumitrescu, Logan; Hohman, Timothy J.; Mukherjee, Shubhabrata
• Is Part Of: Alzheimer's & dementia. Volume 18(2022)Supplement 11
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-12-20
• Subjects: Alzheimer's disease -- Periodicals; Alzheimer Disease -- Periodicals; Dementia -- Periodicals; Démence; Maladie d'Alzheimer; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 616.83
• DOI: 10.1002/alz.064534
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1552-5260

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle (AIBL) Study is a prospective study collecting extensive cognitive, clinical, fluid, and imaging biomarkers data from older adults living in Australia. Integration of outcomes between large prospective studies of AD will provide greater precision in models of AD brain‐behavior relationships, so it is important to align composite scores for cognitive domains between such studies. Methods: Detailed methods for AIBL, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) have been published. Briefly, AIBL participants had cognition assessed with an extensive neuropsychological test battery alongside health and biomarker assessments at entry and each 18‐months thereafter. Granular‐level cognitive data were obtained and an expert panel of two neuropsychologists and a behavioral neurologist categorized each element as assessing memory, executive functioning, language, visuospatial, or none of these, exactly as we have done previously. We also identified elements we had previously calibrated from other studies; after careful quality control and confirmation these served as anchors enabling co‐calibration. We used confirmatory factor analysis bi‐factor models to calibrate the AIBL battery with other studies. We used those calibrations to obtain co‐calibrated scores for all AIBL participants at every study visit. Here we show descriptive statistics for baseline visits, separately by diagnosis (normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia) for two enrollment waves for AIBL as well as for each phase of ADNI and across the Uniform Data Set (UDS) 1 & 2 (UDS1/2) and UDS3 time periods for NACC. Results: Box plots for memory, executive functioning, language, and visuospatial for people with normal cognition are in Figure 1, MCI in Figure 2, and dementia in Figure 3 . These figures show there is substantial cognitive variation across waves within these disease stage groups and across studies. Conclusion: Co‐calibrated neuropsychological domain scores provide a common metric for integrating cognitive data across studies. Co‐calibrated scores aggregated across large prospective AD studies such as AIBL, ADNI, and NACC provide a foundation for large‐scale models of the development of AD and can serve as phenotypes for genetics studies. Co‐calibrated scores are available from AIBL, ADNI, and from NACC.