3.8 Article

Initial validation of the pediatric automated neuropsychological assessment metrics for childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus

期刊

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/art.23005

关键词

cognitive functioning; systemic lupus erythematosus; children; automated neuropsychological assessment metrics

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01-RR-08084] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAMS NIH HHS [P60-AR-47784] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To evaluate the concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the pediatric Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (Ped-ANAM) when used in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods. Formal neuropsychological testing and the Ped-ANAM were performed on 27 children with SLE who had not been previously diagnosed with neuropsychiatric SLE. Performance when completing the 10 Ped-ANAM tests was based on accuracy (AC), mean time to correct response, coefficient of variation of the time required for a correct response (CVc), and throughput. Formal neuropsychological testing was used as a criterion standard for diagnosing neurocognitive dysfunction (NCD; yes/no). Results. NCD was common and present in 16 (59%) of 27 participants. Ped-ANAM performance parameters were often moderately correlated with the Z scores on formal neuropsychological testing. The NCD group differed significantly (P < 0.05) from the normal cognition group in 3 Ped-ANAM tests: CVc with mathematical processing (MTH-CVc), AC with continuous performance test (CPT-AC), and CVc with spatial processing (SPD-CVc). Areas under the receiver operating curves (AUCs) ranged between 0.75 and 0.84 when each of these parameters (CPT-AC, MTH-CVc, SPD-CVc) was used to identify NCD independently. The AUC was improved to 0.96 for the combined assessment. Conclusion. The Ped-ANAM has concurrent validity when used in children with SLE. Initial validation suggests that the Ped-ANAM could be a useful screening tool for NCD in children with SLE.

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

3.8
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