Suppr超能文献

伴有和不伴有抑郁的主观认知衰退、轻度认知障碍及阿尔茨海默病性痴呆的连线测验错误分析

Trail Making Test Error Analysis in Subjective Cognitive Decline, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer's Dementia With and Without Depression.

作者信息

Hafiz Nicklas J, Lohse Andrea, Haas Rico, Reiche Simon, Sedlaczek Lara, Brandl Eva J, Riemer Thomas G

机构信息

Department of Clinical Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2023 Jan 21;38(1):25-36. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acac065.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Standard evaluation of the Trail Making Test (TMT) only incorporates completion times. However, the analysis of different error types may provide more insight into underlying cognitive processes and could also increase diagnostic accuracy. This cross-sectional observational study compared three different TMT error types and assessed their diagnostic utility in patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's dementia (AD) with or without depression.

METHOD

We evaluated 618 outpatients of a memory clinic with SCD (N = 190), MCI (N = 210), or AD (N = 218). Of these, 157 had comorbid depression. TMT completion times, total error rates, and the three error types "sequencing error," "perseverative error," and "proximity error" were examined.

RESULTS

Results indicated that patients with MCI or AD committed more errors on TMT B, and specifically more perseverative errors than patients with SCD (p < 0.001). Depression was not associated with any TMT error type. Including TMT errors in models predicting diagnosis group by TMT completion times did not increase predictive accuracy, measured by areas under the curve.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings do not indicate any impact of comorbid depression on TMT errors. Moreover, TMT error analysis does not seem to provide additional diagnostic utility for SCD, MCI, and AD diagnoses.

摘要

目的

传统的连线测验(TMT)评估仅纳入完成时间。然而,对不同错误类型的分析可能会更深入地洞察潜在的认知过程,还可能提高诊断准确性。这项横断面观察性研究比较了三种不同的TMT错误类型,并评估了它们在有或无抑郁的主观认知下降(SCD)、轻度认知障碍(MCI)和阿尔茨海默病性痴呆(AD)患者中的诊断效用。

方法

我们评估了一家记忆门诊的618名门诊患者,其中SCD患者190例,MCI患者210例,AD患者218例。其中157例患有共病性抑郁。检测了TMT完成时间、总错误率以及“顺序错误”“持续性错误”和“邻近错误”这三种错误类型。

结果

结果表明,MCI或AD患者在TMT B上犯的错误更多,尤其是持续性错误比SCD患者更多(p<0.001)。抑郁与任何TMT错误类型均无关联。在通过TMT完成时间预测诊断组的模型中纳入TMT错误,并未提高以曲线下面积衡量的预测准确性。

结论

研究结果未显示共病性抑郁对TMT错误有任何影响。此外,TMT错误分析似乎并未为SCD、MCI和AD的诊断提供额外的诊断效用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验