INTRODUCTION:The neuropsychological battery of the Uniform Data Set (UDSNB) was implemented in 2005 by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Alzheimer Disease Centers program to measure cognitive ...performance in dementia and mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer Disease. This paper describes a revision, the UDSNB 3.0.
METHODS:The Neuropsychology Work Group of the NIA Clinical Task Force recommended revisions through a process of due diligence to address shortcomings of the original battery. The UDSNB 3.0 covers episodic memory, processing speed, executive function, language, and constructional ability. Data from 3602 cognitively normal participants in the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center database were analyzed.
RESULTS:Descriptive statistics are presented. Multivariable linear regression analyses demonstrated score differences by age, sex, and education and were also used to create a normative calculator available online.
DISCUSSION:The UDSNB 3.0 neuropsychological battery provides a valuable non proprietary resource for conducting research on cognitive aging and dementia.
In recent decades, the ability to represent others’ mental states (i.e., theory of mind) has gained particular attention in various disciplines ranging from ethology to cognitive neuroscience. ...Despite the exponentially growing interest, the functional architecture of social cognition is still unclear. In the present review, we argue that not only the vocabulary but also most of the classic measures for theory of mind lack specificity. We examined classic tests used to assess theory of mind and noted that the majority of them do not require the participant to represent another’s mental state or, sometimes, any mental state at all. Our review reveals that numerous classic tests measure lower-level processes that do not directly test for theory of mind. We propose that more attention should be paid to methods used in this field of social cognition to improve the understanding of underlying concepts.
Background
The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia.
Objectives
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the ...Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia.
Search methods
We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of s of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall.
Selection criteria
We included studies that compared the 11‐item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all‐cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all‐cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating.
Data collection and analysis
At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta‐analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver‐operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method.
Main results
We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full‐text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta‐analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta‐analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study.
The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14‐30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17‐26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta‐analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data.
Authors' conclusions
The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient‐relevant outcomes.
To quantify the evolution, impact, and importance of normative data (ND) calculation by identifying trends in the research literature and what approaches need improvement.
A PRISMA-guideline ...systematic review was performed on literature from 2000 to 2022 in PubMed, Pub-Psych, and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria included scientific articles about ND in neuropsychological tests with clear data analysis, published in any country, and written in English or Spanish. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies were included. Bibliometric analysis was used to examine the growth, productivity, journal dispersion, and impact of the topic. VOSViewer compared keyword co-occurrence networks between 1952-1999 and 2000-2022.
Four hundred twelve articles met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most studied predictors were age, education, and sex. There were a greater number of studies/projects focusing on adults than children. The Verbal Fluency Test (12.7%) was the most studied test, and the most frequently used variable selection strategy was linear regression (49.5%). Regression-based approaches were widely used, whereas the traditional approach was still used. ND were presented mostly in percentiles (44.2%). Bibliometrics showed exponential growth in publications. Three journals (2.41%) were in the Core Zone. VOSViewer results showed small nodes, long distances, and four ND-related topics from 1952 to 1999, and there were larger nodes with short connections from 2000 to 2022, indicating topic spread.
Future studies should be conducted on children's ND, and alternative statistical methods should be used over the widely used regression approaches to address limitations and support growth of the field.
It is common to use normative adjustments based on race to maintain accuracy when interpreting cognitive test results during neuropsychological assessment. However, embedded performance validity ...tests (PVTs) do not adjust for these racial differences and may result in elevated rates of false positives in African American/Black (AA) samples compared to European American/White (EA) samples.
Veterans without Major Neurocognitive Disorder completed an outpatient neuropsychological assessment and were deemed to be performing in a valid manner (e.g., passing both the Test of Memory Malingering Trial 1 (TOMM1) and the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), (n = 531, EA = 473, AA = 58). Five embedded PVTs were administered to all patients: WAIS-III/IV Processing Speed Index (PSI), Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised: Discrimination Index (BVMT-R), TMT-A (secs), California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II) Forced Choice, and WAIS-III/IV Digit Span Scaled Score. Individual PVT false positive rates, as well as the rate of failing two or more embedded PVTs, were calculated.
Failure rates of two embedded PVTs (PSI, TMT-A), and the total number of PVTs failed, were higher in the AA sample. The PSI and TMT-A remained significantly impacted by race after accounting for age, education, sex, and presence of Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. There were PVT failure rates greater than 10% (and considered false positives) in both groups (AA: PSI, TMT-A, and BVMT-R, 12-24%; EA: BVMT-R, 17%). Failing 2 or more PVTs (AA = 9%, EA = 4%) was impacted by education and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder but not by race.
Individual (timed) PVTs showed higher false positive rates in the AA sample even after accounting for demographic factors and diagnosis of Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. Requiring failure on 2 or more embedded PVTs reduced false positive rates to acceptable levels across both groups (10% or less) and was not significantly influenced by race.
PDF
