Back

Development and validation of a harmonized memory score for multicenter Alzheimer's disease and related dementia research

Sanderson-Cimino, M.; Gross, A. L.; Gaynor, L. S.; Paolillo, E. W.; Saloner, R.; Albert, M. S.; Apostolova, L. G.; Boersema, B.; Boxer, A. L.; Boeve, B. F.; Casaletto, K. B.; Hallgarth, S. R.; Diaz, V. E.; Clark, L. R.; Maillard, P.; Eloyan, A.; Tomaszewski Farias, S.; Gonzales, M. M.; Hammers, D. B.; La Joie, R.; Cobigo, Y.; Wolf, A.; Hampstead, B. M.; Mechanic-Hamilton, D.; Miller, B. L.; Rabinovici, G. D.; Ringman, J. M.; Rosen, H. J.; Ryman, S. G.; Prestopnik, J. L.; Salmon, D. P.; Smith, G. E.; DeCarli, C.; Rajan, K. B.; Jin, L.-W.; Hinman, J.; Johnson, D. K.; Harvey, D.; Fornage, M.; Kra

2025-04-03 neurology
10.1101/2025.03.31.25324964 medRxiv
Show abstract

INTRODUCTIONList-learning tasks are important for characterizing memory in ADRD research, but the Uniform Data Set neuropsychological battery (UDS-NB) lacks a list-learning paradigm; thus, sites administer a range of tests. We developed a harmonized memory composite that incorporates UDS memory tests and multiple list-learning tasks. METHODSItem-banking confirmatory factor analysis was applied to develop a memory composite in a diagnostically heterogenous sample (n=5943) who completed the UDS-NB and one of five list-learning tasks. Construct validity was evaluated through associations with demographics, disease severity, cognitive tasks, brain volume, and plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau181 and p-tau217). Test-retest reliability was assessed. Analyses were replicated in a racially/ethnically diverse cohort (n=1058). RESULTSFit indices, loadings, distributions, and test-retest reliability were adequate. Expected associations with demographics and clinical measures within development and validation cohorts supported validity. DISCUSSIONThis composite enables researchers to incorporate multiple list-learning tasks with other UDS measures to create a single metric.

Published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.