Premium
P3‐176: The ARCS: A hybrid cognitive test instrument, highly efficient for the clinician
Author(s) -
Schofield Peter W.,
Lee Stephen J.,
Lyall Grant,
Zug Raihan N.,
Kwan Elaine Y.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2008.05.1742
Subject(s) - dementia , psychology , test (biology) , cognition , neuropsychology , fluency , verbal fluency test , audiology , receiver operating characteristic , executive functions , psychiatry , medicine , disease , biology , paleontology , mathematics education , pathology
AD. Here we analyze verbal list learning in cases classified according to neuropathological findings, considering the question of whether any such features may be diagnostically useful. Methods: Cases came from the Aging Brain study and the UC Davis ADC brain bank. Cases were categorized according to neuropathology as follows: ADpath “high” or “moderate” likelihood of AD by NIA-Reagan Institute criteria and CVDps 20: CVDpath was CVDps 20 with likelihood of AD “low”: MIX likelihood of AD “high” or “moderate” and CVDps 20. (CVDps quantifies vascular lesions, see Chui, Ann Neurol, 2006.) Control (normal elderly brain, NEB) cases had no significant pathology and a CDR of 0. All pathology cases had CDRs of 0.5 or greater. Verbal learning was measured with a 12 word serial list learning task with delayed recall and a yes-no recognition task. Results: The 41 ADpath, 7 CVDpath, 10 MIX and 13 NEB did not differ on education (sample mean 14.5). Proportionately more CVDpath than ADpath were CDR 0.5 (57% vs. 38%). However, disease groups did not differ on Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (mean 113, p .55). Planned comparisons showed that CVDpath performed intermediate to ADpath and NEB on total acquisition, on free recall, cued recall and a retention index. MIX cases performed similarly to ADpath on each of these measures. On recognition, CVDpath, ADpath and MIX did not differ on overall discrimination, but false alarms were more frequent in ADpath and MIX; CVDpath and NEB did not differ on this metric. Neither CVDpath nor ADpath differed from NEB on intrusion errors; MIX had significantly more than all other groups. Conclusions: Cognitively impaired cerebrovascular cases show better learning, better retention, and fewer false alarms on verbal list learning compared to cases with pure AD. The barrier to applying these differences diagnostically is variability within all groups, which is extensive.