Impact of a clinical decision support tool on prediction of progression in early-stage dementia: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, it is often difficult to predict which patients with cognitive complaints or impairment will progress or remain stable. We assessed the impact of using a clinical decision support system, the PredictND tool, to predict progression in patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in memory clinics. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter study, we included 429 patients with SCD (n = 230) and MCI (n = 199) (female 54%, age 67 ± 9, MMSE 28 ± 2) and followed them for at least 12 months. Based on all available patient baseline data (demographics, cognitive tests, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, and MRI), the PredictND tool provides a comprehensive overview of the data and a classification defining the likelihood of progression. At baseline, a clinician defined an expected follow-up diagnosis and estimated the level of confidence in their prediction using a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100%), first without and subsequently with the PredictND tool. As outcome measure, we defined clinical progression as progression from SCD to MCI or dementia, and from MCI to dementia. Correspondence between the expected and the actual clinical progression at follow-up defined the prognostic accuracy. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up time of 1.7 ± 0.4 years, 21 (9%) SCD and 63 (32%) MCI had progressed. When using the PredictND tool, the overall prognostic accuracy was unaffected (0.4%, 95%CI - 3.0%; + 3.9%; p = 0.79). However, restricting the analysis to patients with more certain classifications (n = 203), we found an increase of 3% in the accuracy (95%CI - 0.6%; + 6.5%; p = 0.11). Furthermore, for this subgroup, the tool alone showed a statistically significant increase in the prognostic accuracy compared to the evaluation without tool (6.4%, 95%CI 2.1%; 10.7%; p = 0.004). Specifically, the negative predictive value was high. Moreover, confidence in the prediction increased significantly (∆VAS = 4%, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Adding the PredictND tool to the clinical evaluation increased clinicians' confidence. Furthermore, the results indicate that the tool has the potential to improve prediction of progression for patients with more certain classifications.

Impact of a Clinical Decision Support Tool on Dementia Diagnostics in Memory Clinics: The PredictND Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Determining the underlying etiology of dementia can be challenging. Computer- based Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) have the potential to provide an objective comparison of data and assist clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic impact of a CDSS, the PredictND tool, for differential diagnosis of dementia in memory clinics. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter study, we recruited 779 patients with either subjective cognitive decline (n=252), mild cognitive impairment (n=219) or any type of dementia (n=274) and followed them for minimum 12 months. Based on all available patient baseline data (demographics, neuropsychological tests, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, and MRI visual and computed ratings), the PredictND tool provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of the data with a likelihood index for five diagnostic groups; Alzheimer´s disease, vascular dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia and subjective cognitive decline. At baseline, a clinician defined an etiological diagnosis and confidence in the diagnosis, first without and subsequently with the PredictND tool. The follow-up diagnosis was used as the reference diagnosis. RESULTS: In total, 747 patients completed the follow-up visits (53% female, 69±10 years). The etiological diagnosis changed in 13% of all cases when using the PredictND tool, but the diagnostic accuracy did not change significantly. Confidence in the diagnosis, measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100%) increased (ΔVAS=3.0%, p<0.0001), especially in correctly changed diagnoses (ΔVAS=7.2%, p=0.0011). CONCLUSION: Adding the PredictND tool to the diagnostic evaluation affected the diagnosis and increased clinicians' confidence in the diagnosis indicating that CDSSs could aid clinicians in the differential diagnosis of dementia.

Evaluating combinations of diagnostic tests to discriminate different dementia types.

INTRODUCTION: We studied, using a data-driven approach, how different combinations of diagnostic tests contribute to the differential diagnosis of dementia. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we included 356 patients with Alzheimer's disease, 87 frontotemporal dementia, 61 dementia with Lewy bodies, 38 vascular dementia, and 302 controls. We used a classifier to assess accuracy for individual performance and combinations of cognitive tests, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, and automated magnetic resonance imaging features for pairwise differentiation between dementia types. RESULTS: Cognitive tests had good performance in separating any type of dementia from controls. Cerebrospinal fluid optimally contributed to identifying Alzheimer's disease, whereas magnetic resonance imaging features aided in separating vascular dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, and frontotemporal dementia. Combining diagnostic tests increased the accuracy, with balanced accuracies ranging from 78% to 97%. DISCUSSION: Different diagnostic tests have their distinct roles in differential diagnostics of dementias. Our results indicate that combining different diagnostic tests may increase the accuracy further.

Automatic MRI Quantifying Methods in Behavioral-Variant Frontotemporal Dementia Diagnosis.

AIMS: We assessed the value of automated MRI quantification methods in the differential diagnosis of behavioral-variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) from Alzheimer disease (AD), Lewy body dementia (LBD), and subjective memory complaints (SMC). We also examined the role of the C9ORF72-related genetic status in the differentiation sensitivity. METHODS: The MRI scans of 50 patients with bvFTD (17 C9ORF72 expansion carriers) were analyzed using 6 quantification methods as follows: voxel-based morphometry (VBM), tensor-based morphometry, volumetry (VOL), manifold learning, grading, and white-matter hyperintensities. Each patient was then individually compared to an independent reference group in order to attain diagnostic suggestions. RESULTS: Only VBM and VOL showed utility in correctly identifying bvFTD from our set of data. The overall classification sensitivity of bvFTD with VOL + VBM achieved a total sensitivity of 60%. Using VOL + VBM, 32% were misclassified as having LBD. There was a trend of higher values for classification sensitivity of the C9ORF72 expansion carriers than noncarriers. CONCLUSION: VOL, VBM, and their combination are effective in differential diagnostics between bvFTD and AD or SMC. However, MRI atrophy profiles for bvFTD and LBD are too similar for a reliable differentiation with the quantification methods tested in this study.

Validation of prognostic biomarker scores for predicting progression of dementia in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a practical computerized prognostic model that uses baseline psychometric and imaging data, including results of PET imaging of amyloid deposition, to predict the progression to dementia in patients at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients in a phase II trial of [F]flutemetamol for PET imaging of brain amyloid and from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were used to train the prognostic model to yield a disease state index (DSI), a measure of the similarity of an individual patient's data to data from patients in specific diagnostic groups. Inputs to the model included amyloid PET results, MRI measurements of hippocampal volume, and the results of psychometric tests. The model was subsequently validated by using data from a prospective study of an independent cohort of patients with mild cognitive impairment. RESULTS: In total, data from 223 patients of the 233 enroled were suitable for analysis. The DSI predicted by the model and the risk of progression to AD dementia within 3 years were higher for patients with amyloid deposition and neurodegeneration than for patients with amyloid deposition without neurodegeneration. Rates of non-AD dementia among patients with neurodegeneration at baseline were consistent with the results of other studies. The results were consistent with the Jack model of AD progression. CONCLUSION: The DSI from the model that included psychometric, MRI, and PET amyloid data provides useful prognostic information in cases of mild cognitive impairment.