4.7 Article

Addition of EEG improves accuracy of a logistic model that uses neuropsychological and cardiovascular factors to identify dementia and MCI

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 186, Issue 1, Pages 97-102

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.04.058

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; Vascular dementia; Mild cognitive impairment; Electroencephalography

Categories

Funding

  1. Lexicor Medical Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To investigate whether addition of EEG would improve accuracy of a logistic model that uses neuropsychological assessment and cardiovascular history to identify dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) as a single group, we collected data and constructed logistic models from a sample of 78 normal adults and 33 patients (aged 50-85 years). To determine accuracy, we compared logistic regression results to a geriatrician's diagnosis of MCI or dementia that included Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia or mixed dementia. We found that the addition of EEG (non-linear complexity) to a logistic model that included both neuropsychological assessment (ADAS-Cog) and cardiovascular history increased overall accuracy from 80% to 92%. The logistic model identified dementia and MCI as a single group comprised of the following subgroups (with accuracies): Alzheimer's disease (92%; 12/13), vascular dementia (73%; 8/11). mixed dementia (100%; 4/4), and mild cognitive impairment (80%; 4/5). Whereas the analysis is limited by small sample sizes and mixing of diverse pathologies, the findings do provide support that the subgroups may share changes in neuropsychological, cardiovascular, and electroencephalographic factors (specifically ADAS-Cog total score, cardiovascular history, and EEG complexity). Taken together, the study results provide support that EEG might complement the clinician's evaluation of dementia and MCI. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available