Table 2.
Diagnostic accuracy.
| Description | Threshold | Sensitivity (95% CI) |
Specificity (95% CI) |
AUC (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBB Lrn/WM Composite | Optimal (z) | |||
| CU vs MCI all subjects | ≤ −0.21 | 0.70 (0.64,0.76) | 0.70 (0.68,0.72) | 0.75 (0.71,0.78) |
| CU A−T− vs MCI A+T+ | ≤ −0.32 | 0.93 (0.80,1.00) | 0.79 (0.72,0.86) | 0.93 (0.87,0.99) |
| MCI A−T− vs MCI A+T+ | ≤ −0.79 | 0.80 (0.60,1.00) | 0.86 (0.64,1.00) | 0.86 (0.73,1.00) |
| CBB Lrn/WM Composite | Conventional (z)1 | |||
| CU vs MCI all subjects | ≤ −1 | 0.38 (0.32,0.45) | 0.91 (0.90,0.92) | |
| CU A−T− vs MCI A+T+ | ≤ −1 | 0.73 (0.47,0.93) | 0.95 (0.91,0.99) | |
| MCI A−T− vs MCI A+T+ | ≤ −1 | 0.73 (0.47,0.93) | 0.86 (0.64,1.00) | |
|
| ||||
| CBB Attention/Psychomotor Composite | Optimal (z) | |||
| CU vs MCI all subjects | ≤ −0.73 | 0.69 (0.63, 0.75) | 0.64 (0.62, 0.65) | 0.70 (0.66, 0.74) |
| CU A−T− vs MCI A+T+ | ≤ −1.32 | 0.60 (0.33, 0.80) | 0.73 (0.66, 0.80) | 0.64 (0.49, 0.80) |
| MCI A−T− vs MCI A+T+ | ≤ −1.10 | 0.60 (0.33, 0.87) | 0.50 (0.21, 0.79) | 0.43 (0.21, 0.65) |
| CBB Attention/Psychomotor Composite | Conventional (z)1 | |||
| CU vs MCI all subjects | ≤ −1 | 0.53 (0.47, 0.60) | 0.73 (0.71, 0.75) | |
| CU A−T− vs MCI A+T+ | ≤ −1 | 0.60 (0.33, 0.87) | 0.63 (0.55, 0.70) | |
| MCI A−T− vs MCI A+T+ | ≤ −1 | 0.60 (0.33, 0.87) | 0.50 (0.21, 0.79) | |
Note. CBB = Cogstate Brief Battery. Lrn/WM = Learning/Working Memory. CU= Cognitively Unimpaired. MCI= Mild Cognitive Impairment. A = amyloid. T = tau. Cogstate Brief Battery was independent of diagnosis. Biomarker status was not considered for diagnosis.
1
AUC values are the same regardless of cut-off applied thus are not repeated.