Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 397

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Combining Early Markers Strongly Predicts Conversion from Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer's Disease

Open access
Devanand, Davangere P., Liu, Xinhua, Tabert, Matthias H., Pradhaban, Gnanavalli, Cuasay, Katrina, Bell, Karen, de Leon, Mony J., Doty, Richard L., Stern, Yaakov, Pelton, Gregory H.·2008·Biological Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.06.020
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background The utility of combining early markers to predict conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) remains uncertain. Methods 148 outpatients with MCI, broadly defined, were followed at 6-month intervals. Hypothesized baseline predictors for follow-up conversion to AD (entire sample: 39/148 converters) were cognitive test performance, informant report of functional impairment, apolipoprotein E genotype, olfactory identification deficit, MRI hippocampal and entorhinal cortex volumes. Results In the 3-year follow-up patient sample (33/126 converters), five of eight hypothesized predictors were selected by backward and stepwise logistic regression: FAQ (informant report of functioning), UPSIT (olfactory identification), SRT immediate recall (verbal memory), MRI hippocampal volume, MRI entorhinal cortex volume. For 10% false positives (90% specificity), this five-predictor combination showed 85.2% sensitivity, combining age and MMSE showed 39.4% sensitivity, and combining age, MMSE, and the three clinical predictors (SRT immediate recall, FAQ, and UPSIT) showed 81.3% sensitivity. Area under ROC curve was greater for the five-predictor combination (0.948) than age plus MMSE (0.821; p =.0009), and remained high in sub-samples with MMSE ≥ 27/30 and amnestic MCI. For the entire patient sample, based on dichotomizing estimated risk at 0.5, positive likelihood ratio was 16.8 (95% CI 6.4, 44.3) and negative likelihood ratio was 0.2 (95% CI 0.1, 0.4). Conclusions The five-predictor combination strongly predicted conversion to AD and was markedly superior to combining age and MMSE. Combining only clinically administered measures also led to strong predictive accuracy. If independently replicated, the findings have potential utility for early detection of AD.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.06.020

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Devanand, D. P., Liu, X., Tabert, M. H., Pradhaban, G., Cuasay, K., Bell, K., de Leon, M. J., Doty, R. L., Stern, Y., & Pelton, G. H.
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-11
Volume
64
Issue
10
Pages
871-879
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.06.020
OpenAlex
W2097122549
Cited by
397
References
11
FWCI
8.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.