4.1 Article

Utility of the Functional Activities Questionnaire for Distinguishing Mild Cognitive Impairment From Very Mild Alzheimer Disease

期刊

ALZHEIMER DISEASE & ASSOCIATED DISORDERS
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 348-353

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181e2fc84

关键词

mild cognitive impairment; dementia; Alzheimer disease; activities of daily living; standardized assessment

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [P50 AG16570, U01 AG016976]
  2. National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center
  3. Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers of California
  4. Sidell-Kagan Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) require essentially intact performance of activities of daily living (ADLs), which has proven difficult to operationalize. We sought to determine how well the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ), a standardized assessment of instrumental ADLs, delineates the clinical distinction between MCI and very mild Alzheimer disease (AD). We identified 1801 individuals in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set with MCI (n = 1108) or very mild AD (n = 693) assessed with the FAQ and randomized them to the development or test sets. Receiver-operator curve (ROC) analysis of the development set identified optimal cut-points that maximized the sensitivity and specificity of FAQ measures for differentiating AD from MCI and were validated with the test set. ROC analysis of total FAQ scores in the development set produced an area under the curve of 0.903 and an optimal cut-point of 5/6, which yielded 80.3% sensitivity, 87.0% specificity, and 84.7% classification accuracy in the test set. Bill paying, tracking current events, and transportation (P's < 0.005) were the FAQ items of greatest diagnostic utility. These data suggest that the FAQ exhibits adequate sensitivity and specificity when used as a standardized assessment of instrumental ADLs in the diagnosis of AD versus MCI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据