5 results
12 Differential Processing Efficiency Skills in Survivors of Pediatric Primary CNS Cancer and Cancers of non-CNS Origin
- Julie A Trapani, Victoria C Seghatol-Eslami, Tiffany D Tucker, Amanda M Cook, Sarah-Ann McGilvray, Shreya Grandhi, Donna L Murdaugh
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, p. 14
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Pediatric cancer and cancer-related treatments may disrupt brain development and place survivors at risk for long term problems with cognitive functions. Processing efficiency has been operationalized as a nuanced cognitive skill that reflects both processing speed (PS) and working memory (WM) abilities and is sensitive to neurobiological disruption. Pediatric cancer survivors are at risk for processing efficiency deficits; however, a thorough characterization of processing efficiency skills across pediatric primary central nervous system (CNS) tumor and non-CNS cancer survivors has not yet been reported.
Participants and Methods:Participants were selected from a mixed retrospective clinical database of pediatric cancer survivors (Total n=160; primary CNS tumor n=33; Non-CNS n=127). Univariate analyses were conducted to examine differences in processing efficiency mean scores (t-tests) and percent impairment (scores >1 SD below mean; chi-squared tests) between the total sample and normative sample, and across groups (CNS vs. Non-CNS). Multiple linear regressions were utilized to evaluate the relationships between additional risk factors, including biological sex, age at diagnosis, time since treatment, and socioeconomic status, and processing efficiency outcomes.
Results:The total sample obtained lower scores on WM (M=90.83, SD=13.35) and PS (M=88.86, SD=14.38) measures than normative samples (M=100, SD=15), p < 0.001. Greater percentage of pediatric cancer survivors demonstrated impairment across all processing efficiency measures (24.8-38.1%) than normative samples (15.9%), p < 0.001. Regarding group differences, the CNS group obtained lower mean WM (M=84.85, SD =11.77) and PS (M=80, SD=14.18) scores than the Non-CNS group (WM M=92.39, SD=13.32; PS M=91.16, SD=13.56), p < 0.001. Rates of impairment between groups only differed for PS scores, with 63.6% of the CNS group and 31.5% of the non-CNS group demonstrating impairment, p < 0.001. Primary CNS tumor cancer type and male biological sex emerged as the only significant risk factors that predicted processing efficiency skills, with male sex predicting lower scores on PS (ß=8.91 p<.001) and semantic fluency (ß=7.59, p=.007).
Conclusions:These findings indicate that both pediatric primary CNS tumor and non-CNS cancer survivors exhibit substantial weaknesses in processing efficiency skills after treatment. While both groups demonstrated deficits compared to normative samples, the CNS group was more susceptible to PS impairments than non-CNS group. A basic initial study of the relationships between risk factors and processing efficiency skills revealed that primary CNS cancer was a predictor of lower performance on working memory and processing speed measures, while male biological sex was a significant risk factor for worse performance on processing speed and semantic fluency measures. Continued focus on the construct of processing efficiency in pediatric cancer survivors is warranted. Applying a standardized approach to assessing and communicating this nuanced cognitive skill could contribute to advancing both clinical practice and outcomes research of pediatric cancer survivors.
77 Differentiating Amnestic Versus Non-Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment Using the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery
- Cameron K Perrin, Amanda Cook Maher, Allyson Gregoire, Jonathan Reader, Arijit Bhaumik, Benjamin M Hampstead, Bruno Giordani
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 380-381
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
In research, and particularly clinical trials, it is important to identify persons at high risk for developing Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), such as those with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). However, not all persons with this diagnosis have a high risk of AD as MCI can be broken down further into amnestic MCI (aMCI), who have a high risk specifically for AD, and non-amnestic MCI (naMCI), who are predominantly at risk for other dementias. People with aMCI largely differ from healthy controls and naMCI on memory tasks as it is the hallmark criteria for an amnestic diagnosis. Given the growing use of the NIH Toolbox Cognition battery in research trials, this project investigated which Toolbox Cognition measures best differentiated aMCI from naMCI and in comparison to persons with normal cognition.
Participants and Methods:A retrospective data analysis was conducted investigating performance on NIH Toolbox Cognition tasks among 199 participants enrolled in the Michigan Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. All participants were over age 50 (51-89 years, M=70.64) and had a diagnosis of aMCI (N=74), naMCI (N=24), or Normal Cognition (N=101). Potential demographic differences were investigated using chi-square and ANOVAs. Repeated measure general linear model was used to look at potential group differences in Toolbox Cognition performance, covarying for age which was statistically different in aMCI versus Normal participants. Linear regression was used to determine which cognitive abilities, as measured by the Uniform Data Set-3 (UDS3), might contribute to Toolbox differences noted in naMCI versus aMCI groups.
Results:As expected, aMCI had lower Toolbox memory scores compared to naMCI (p=0.007) and Normals (p<0.001). Interestingly, naMCI had lower Oral Reading scores than both aMCI (p=0.008) and Normals (p<0.001). There were no other Toolbox performance differences between the MCI groups. 19.4% of the variance in Oral Reading scores was explained by performance on the following UDS3 measures: Benson delayed recall (inverse relationship) and backward digit span and phonemic fluency (positive relationship).
Conclusions:In this study, Toolbox Picture Sequence Memory and Oral Reading scores differentiated aMCI and naMCI groups. While the difference in memory was expected, it was surprising that the naMCI group performed worse than the aMCI and normal groups on the Toolbox Oral Reading task, a task presumed to reflect Crystalized abilities resistive to cognitive decline. Results suggest that Oral Reading is primarily positively associated with working memory and executive tasks from the UDS3, but negatively associated with visual memory. It is possible that the Oral Reading subtest is sensitive to domains of deficit aside from memory that can best distinguish aMCI from naMCI. A better understanding of the underlying features in the Oral Reading task will assist in better characterizing deficit patterns seen in naMCI, making selection of aMCI participants more effective in clinical trials.
Neuropsychological Profiles of Older Adults with Superior versus Average Episodic Memory: The Northwestern “SuperAger” Cohort
- Amanda Cook Maher, Beth Makowski-Woidan, Alan Kuang, Hui Zhang, Sandra Weintraub, M. Marsel Mesulam, Emily Rogalski
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 28 / Issue 6 / July 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 August 2021, pp. 563-573
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
SuperAgers are adults over the age of 80 with superior episodic memory performance and at least average-for-age performance in non-episodic memory domains. This study further characterized the neuropsychological profile of SuperAgers compared to average-for-age episodic memory peers to determine potential cognitive mechanisms contributing to their superior episodic memory performance.
Method:Retrospective analysis of neuropsychological test data from 56 SuperAgers and 23 similar-age peers with average episodic memory was conducted. Independent sample t-tests evaluated between-group differences in neuropsychological scores. Multiple linear regression determined the influence of non-episodic memory function on episodic memory scores across participants.
Results:As a group, SuperAgers had better scores than their average memory peers on measures of attention, working memory, naming, and speeded set shifting. Scores on tests of processing speed, visuospatial function, verbal fluency, response inhibition, and abstract reasoning did not differ. On an individual level, there was variability among SuperAgers with regard to non-episodic memory performance, with some performing above average-for-age across cognitive domains while others performed in the average-for-age range on non-memory tests. Across all participants, attention and executive function scores explained 20.4% of the variance in episodic memory scores.
Conclusions:As a group, SuperAgers outperformed their average memory peers in multiple cognitive domains, however, there was considerable intragroup variability suggesting that SuperAgers’ episodic memory strength is not simply related to globally superior cognitive functioning. Attention and executive function performance explained approximately one-fifth of the variance in episodic memory and maybe areas to target with cognitive interventions.
Functional health status in children and adolescents after Fontan: comparison of generic and disease-specific assessments
- Brian W. McCrindle, Victor Zak, Victoria L. Pemberton, Linda M. Lambert, Victoria L. Vetter, Wyman W. Lai, Karen Uzark, Renee Margossian, Andrew M. Atz, Amanda Cook, Jane W. Newburger
-
- Journal:
- Cardiology in the Young / Volume 24 / Issue 3 / June 2014
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 10 June 2013, pp. 469-477
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare associations between generic versus disease-specific functional health status assessments and patient and clinical characteristics for patients with severe congenital heart disease. Methods: This was a cross-sectional observational study involving 325 single ventricle patients, aged 10–18 years, after Fontan procedure. Enrolled patients underwent a medical history review, laboratory testing, and assessment of the functional health status by completion of the generic Child Report Child Health Questionnaire and the disease-specific Congenital Heart Adolescent and Teenage questionnaire. Correlated conceptually equivalent domains from both questionnaires were identified and their associations with patient and clinical variables were compared. Results: From the generic assessment, patients perceived marginally lower physical functioning (p = 0.05) but greater freedom from bodily pain compared with a normal population (p < 0.001). The equivalent physical functioning/limitations domain of the generic instrument, compared with the disease-specific instrument, had similar associations (higher multi-variable model R2) with medical history variables (R2 = 0.14 versus R2 = 0.12, respectively) and stronger associations with exercise testing variables (R2 = 0.22 versus R2 = 0.06). Similarly, the corresponding freedom from bodily pain/symptoms domains from both questionnaires showed a greater association for the generic instrument with medical history variables (R2 = 0.15 versus R2 = 0.09, respectively) and non-cardiac conditions (R2 = 0.13 versus R2 = 0.06). The associations of each questionnaire with echocardiographic results, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging results, and serum brain natriuretic peptide levels were uniformly weak (R2 range <0.01 to 0.04). Conclusions: Assessment of the physical functional health status using generic and disease-specific instruments yields few differences with regard to associations between conceptually similar domains and patient and clinical characteristics for adolescents after Fontan procedure.
Contributors
-
- By Joanne R. Adler, David A. Alexander, Laurence Alison, Catherine C. Ayoub, Peter Banister, Anthony R. Beech, Amanda Biggs, Julian Boon, Adrian Bowers, Neil Brewer, Eric Broekaert, Paula Brough, Jennifer M. Brown, Kevin Browne, Elizabeth A. Campbell, David Canter, Michael Carlin, Shihning Chou, Martin A. Conway, Claire Cooke, David Cooke, Ilse Derluyn, Robert J. Edelmann, Vincent Egan, Tom Ellis, Marie Eyre, David P. Farrington, Seena Fazel, Daniel B. Fishman, Victoria Follette, Katarina Fritzon, Elizabeth Gilchrist, Nathan D. Gillard, Renée Gobeil, Agnieszka Golec de Zavala, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Lynsey Gozna, Don Grubin, Gisli H. Gudjonsson, Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm, Guy Hall, Nathan Hall, Roisin Hall, Sean Hammond, Leigh Harkins, Grant T. Harris, Camilla Herbert, Robert D. Hoge, Todd E. Hogue, Clive R. Hollin, Lorraine Hope, Miranda A. H. Horvath, Kevin Howells, Carol A. Ireland, Jane L. Ireland, Mark Kebbell, Michael King, Bruce D. Kirkcaldy, Heidi La Bash, Cara Laney, William R. Lindsay, Elizabeth F. Loftus, L. E. Marshall, W. L. Marshall, James McGuire, Neil McKeganey, T. M. McMillan, Mary McMurran, Joav Merrick, Becky Milne, Joanne M. Nadkarni, Claire Nee, M. D. O’Brien, William O’Donohue, Darragh O’Neill, Jane Palmer, Adria Pearson, Derek Perkins, Devon L. L. Polaschek, Louise E. Porter, Charlotte C. Powell, Graham E. Powell, Martine Powell, Christine Puckering, Ethel Quayle, Vernon L. Quinsey, Marnie E. Rice, Randall Richardson-Vejlgaard, Richard Rogers, Louis B Schlesinger, Carolyn Semmler, G. A. Serran, Ralph C. Serin, John L. Taylor, Max Taylor, Brian Thomas-Peter, Paul A. Tiffin, Graham Towl, Rosie Travers, Arlene Vetere, Graham Wagstaff, Helen Wakeling, Fiona Warren, Brandon C. Welsh, David Wexler, Margaret Wilson, Dan Yarmey, Susan Young
- Edited by Jennifer M. Brown, London School of Economics and Political Science, Elizabeth A. Campbell, University of Glasgow
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
- Published online:
- 06 July 2010
- Print publication:
- 29 April 2010, pp xix-xxiii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation