Community-based Model for Dementia Risk Screening: The Beijing Aging Brain Rejuvenation Initiative (BABRI) Brain Health System

Brain health assessment. An exploratory review of tools related to its cognitive dimension

Background

Brain health is an evolving concept and relates to physical and mental health, social well-being, productivity, creativity. Brain health has several dimensions (cognitive, motor, functional, social, and emotional), and should be recognized as one top global priorities of health policies. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of tools developed for assessing the cognitive dimension of brain health in the out-patient services.

Methods

A literature search on PubMed was performed (from inception to May 31, 2023). We identified cognitive tests, functional and psychological scales, and focused on screening tools specifically proposed to characterize cognition within the construct of brain health, comparing them with common global screening tests.

Results

Among 1947 records, we identified 17 cognitive screening tools used in the context of brain health assessment, of which four were ad hoc developed: Brain Health Assessment (BHA), Brain Health Test (BHT), Brain Health Test-7 (BHT-7), and The Cogniciti Brain Health Assessment. The four tests have administration time ranging from 4 to 30 min, and different administration methods (paper-and-pencil or tablet-based). All four tools assess memory and other cognitive domains. Specific cut-offs have been identified for BHT and BHT-7, while the other tools have automated scoring systems. All but one test also assess other dimensions. Compared to commonly used cognitive screening tests, the brain health tools are less widely used, translated, and validated.

Conclusions

The concept of brain health is new and requires further validation of tools for its assessment, especially for the cognition dimension.

Multi-domain prognostic models used in middle-aged adults without known cognitive impairment for predicting subsequent dementia

BACKGROUND

Dementia, a global health priority, has no current cure. Around 50 million people worldwide currently live with dementia, and this number is expected to treble by 2050. Some health conditions and lifestyle behaviours can increase or decrease the risk of dementia and are known as 'predictors'. Prognostic models combine such predictors to measure the risk of future dementia. Models that can accurately predict future dementia would help clinicians select high-risk adults in middle age and implement targeted risk reduction.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to identify multi-domain prognostic models used in middle-aged adults (aged 45 to 65 years) for predicting dementia or cognitive impairment. Eligible multi-domain prognostic models involved two or more of the modifiable dementia predictors identified in a 2020 Lancet Commission report and a 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) report (less education, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, hypertension, excessive alcohol intake, obesity, smoking, depression, social isolation, physical inactivity, diabetes mellitus, air pollution, poor diet, and cognitive inactivity). Our secondary objectives were to summarise the prognostic models, to appraise their predictive accuracy (discrimination and calibration) as reported in the development and validation studies, and to identify the implications of using dementia prognostic models for the management of people at a higher risk for future dementia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Science Core Collection from inception until 6 June 2022. We performed forwards and backwards citation tracking of included studies using the Web of Science platform.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included development and validation studies of multi-domain prognostic models. The minimum eligible follow-up was five years. Our primary outcome was an incident clinical diagnosis of dementia based on validated diagnostic criteria, and our secondary outcome was dementia or cognitive impairment determined by any other method.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the references, extracted data using a template based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), and assessed risk of bias and applicability of included studies using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). We synthesised the C-statistics of models that had been externally validated in at least three comparable studies.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 20 eligible studies; eight were development studies and 12 were validation studies. There were 14 unique prognostic models: seven models with validation studies and seven models with development-only studies. The models included a median of nine predictors (range 6 to 34); the median number of modifiable predictors was five (range 2 to 11). The most common modifiable predictors in externally validated models were diabetes, hypertension, smoking, physical activity, and obesity. In development-only models, the most common modifiable predictors were obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking. No models included hearing loss or air pollution as predictors. Nineteen studies had a high risk of bias according to the PROBAST assessment, mainly because of inappropriate analysis methods, particularly lack of reported calibration measures. Applicability concerns were low for 12 studies, as their population, predictors, and outcomes were consistent with those of interest for this review. Applicability concerns were high for nine studies, as they lacked baseline cognitive screening or excluded an age group within the range of 45 to 65 years. Only one model, Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Ageing, and Dementia (CAIDE), had been externally validated in multiple studies, allowing for meta-analysis. The CAIDE model included eight predictors (four modifiable predictors): age, education, sex, systolic blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol, physical activity and APOEƐ4 status. Overall, our confidence in the prediction accuracy of CAIDE was very low; our main reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence were high risk of bias across all the studies, high concern of applicability, non-overlapping confidence intervals (CIs), and a high degree of heterogeneity. The summary C-statistic was 0.71 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.76; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) for the incident clinical diagnosis of dementia, and 0.67 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.73; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) for dementia or cognitive impairment based on cognitive scores. Meta-analysis of calibration measures was not possible, as few studies provided these data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified 14 unique multi-domain prognostic models used in middle-aged adults for predicting subsequent dementia. Diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking were the most common modifiable risk factors used as predictors in the models. We performed meta-analyses of C-statistics for one model (CAIDE), but the summary values were unreliable. Owing to lack of data, we were unable to meta-analyse the calibration measures of CAIDE. This review highlights the need for further robust external validations of multi-domain prognostic models for predicting future risk of dementia in middle-aged adults.

Neuroimaging brain growth charts: A road to mental health

Mental disorders are common health concerns and contribute to a heavy global burden on our modern society. It is challenging to identify and treat them timely. Neuroimaging evidence suggests the incidence of various psychiatric and behavioral disorders is closely related to the atypical development of brain structure and function. The identification and understanding of atypical brain development provide chances for clinicians to detect mental disorders earlier, perhaps even prior to onset, and treat them more precisely. An invaluable and necessary method in identifying and monitoring atypical brain development are growth charts of typically developing individuals in the population. The brain growth charts can offer a series of standard references on typical neurodevelopment, representing an important resource for the scientific and medical communities. In the present paper, we review the relationship between mental disorders and atypical brain development from a perspective of normative brain development by surveying the recent progress in the development of brain growth charts, including four aspects on growth chart utility: 1) cohorts, 2) measures, 3) mechanisms, and 4) clinical translations. In doing so, we seek to clarify the challenges and opportunities in charting brain growth, and to promote the application of brain growth charts in clinical practice.