MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3213475946 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-150689

Cognitive Profile of Adults with Sickle Cell Disease - Cluster Analysis

2021· article· en· W3213475946 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Maryline Couette, Stéphanie Forté, Damien Oudin Doglioni, Kevin H.M. Kuo, Pablo Bartolucci

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Établissements canadiensCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNeuropsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentAnxietyCognitionMedicineHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleNeuropsychological assessmentDepression (economics)Executive functionsEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceClinical psychologyPsychiatryPediatricsPsychologyCognitive impairment

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Published literature on cognitive functioning in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) is sparse when compared to children. A few reports describe deficits in processing speed and executive functioning. Some studies suggest that these deficits are more severe in patients with silent cerebral infarcts (SCI). Even in the absence of radiological evidence of ischemic injury, some cognitive deficits have been depicted in adults . We hypothesize that in SCD adults, the cognitive profile varies with the presence of ischemic injury (SCI or overt stroke). The aims of this study were 1) to describe the neuropsychological profiles of SCD adults, and 2) to characterize clusters of patients with similar cognitive profiles. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all consecutive SCD adults who underwent comprehensive neuropsychological assessment during routine care at the UMGGR clinic at Henri Mondor Hospital, Créteil (France), between January 2017 and April 2021. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were used for cognitive disorder, anxiety and depression screening, respectively. The cognitive battery combined standardized neuropsychological tests with established clinical utility and validity. Educational attainment was scored based on the number of years of schooling for the highest completed diploma. Principal component analysis was performed. ANOVA was used to compare patients' characteristics between clusters. Results: 80 patients, median age 36.5 [range 19-63] years were included. 40 (50.0%) were male. Genotype distribution was 62 patients (77.5%) with SS/Sbeta 0, 12 (15.0%) with SC and 6 (7.5%) with Sbeta +. On Principal Component Analysis, a 5-factor model presented the best fit (Bartlett's sphericity test (χ²(171)=1174; p<0.001)), explaining 71.8% of the variance in neuropsychological scores. The first factor encompassed tests specifically assessing visual attention/visual organization (right hemisphere). The second included tests for mental/cognitive control (frontal lobe), the third tests of selective inhibition/attention (fronto-parietal), the fourth tests for language/memory (left temporal lobe) and the last referred to shifting skill (sub-cortical loop). On hierarchical classification, 3 different clusters emerged: 32 patients in cluster 1, 32 in cluster 2 and 16 in cluster 3. Cluster 1 had a lower mean educational level (F(2,77) = 15,65; p<0,001). Cluster 1 showed the lowest mean MoCA score (20.0/30.0), relative to cluster 2 and 3 (24.6 and 26.4; p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). Cluster 1 patients presented deficits on all five factors. Cluster 2 patients compared to cluster 3 were altered in 4 factors (factors 1-4), but to a lesser extent than cluster 1. Processing speed was slower and some frontal-executive deficits were present in cluster 2 compared to cluster 3. There was no statistical difference between clusters in terms of ethnic origins. There was a trend for the presence of more cerebral vasculopathy in cluster 1 (chi2; p=0.06). Regarding stroke, 70% occurred during childhood in cluster 1, whereas 70% during adulthood in cluster 2, and 100% during adulthood in cluster 3. Conclusions: Overall, these results suggest at least three different cognitive profiles in adults with SCD: 1) few or no cognitive deficits (cluster 3), 2) some cognitive impairment with a sub-cortical cognitive profile (cluster 2) and 3) more global cognitive impairment with cortical/sub-cortical profile and specific deficits of memory, language and constructional praxis, depending on the location of prior overt neurological events (cluster 1). To reduce the long-term cognitive morbidity of SCD, patients can be identified by their distinct cognitive profiles and neurorehabilitation tailored to their unique profile should be applied. The large proportion of childhood stroke in patients with global cognitive impairment in contrast with majority of those with milder to no cognitive impairment having had their stroke in adulthood emphasize the crucial importance of preventing early childhood stroke and implementing early neurorehabilitation. Disclosures Forté: Canadian Hematology Society: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Kuo: Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bartolucci: Jazz Pharma: Other: Lecture fees; AGIOS: Consultancy; Emmaus: Consultancy; GBT: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Hemanext: Consultancy; INNOVHEM: Other: Co-founder; Bluebird: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Lecture fees, Steering committee, Research Funding; Fabre Foundation: Research Funding; Addmedica: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,007

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,004
Tête enseignante GPT0,212
Écart entre enseignants0,208 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersTravaux en français237 207