Longitudinal change in serial position scores in older adults with entorhinal and hippocampal neuropathologies

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objective:

Serial position scores on verbal memory tests are sensitive to early Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-related neuropathological changes that occur in the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus. The current study examines longitudinal change in serial position scores as markers of subtle cognitive decline in older adults who may be in preclinical or at-risk states for AD.

Methods:

This study uses longitudinal data from the Religious Orders Study and the Rush Memory and Aging Project. Participants ( n = 141) were included if they did not have dementia at enrollment, completed follow-up assessments, and died and were classified as Braak stage I or II. Memory tests were used to calculate serial position (primacy, recency), total recall, and episodic memory composite scores. A neuropathological evaluation quantified AD, vascular, and Lewy body pathologies. Mixed effects models were used to examine change in memory scores. Neuropathologies and covariates (age, sex, education, APOE e4) were examined as moderators.

Results:

Primacy scores declined ( β = −.032, p < .001), whereas recency scores increased ( β = .021, p = .012). No change was observed in standard memory measures. Greater neurofibrillary tangle density and atherosclerosis explained 10.4% of the variance in primacy decline. Neuropathologies were not associated with recency change.

Conclusions:

In older adults with hippocampal neuropathologies, primacy score decline may be a sensitive marker of early AD-related changes. Tangle density and atherosclerosis had additive effects on decline. Recency improvement may reflect a compensatory mechanism. Monitoring for changes in serial position scores may be a useful in vivo method of tracking incipient AD.

Related collections

Most cited references 81

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4

Steve Walker, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker … (2022)

0 comments Cited 11328 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease

Clifford R. Jack, David Bennett, Kaj Blennow … (2018)

In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.