Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Original ArticlesChronic Kidney Disease
You have accessRestricted Access

Evaluation of Neurocognition in Youth with CKD Using a Novel Computerized Neurocognitive Battery

Erum A. Hartung, Ji Young Kim, Nina Laney, Stephen R. Hooper, Jerilynn Radcliffe, Allison M. Port, Ruben C. Gur and Susan L. Furth
CJASN January 2016, 11 (1) 39-46; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.02110215
Erum A. Hartung
*Division of Nephrology,
†Department of Pediatrics and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ji Young Kim
‡Biostatistics Core, Clinical and Translational Research Center, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nina Laney
*Division of Nephrology,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen R. Hooper
§Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jerilynn Radcliffe
†Department of Pediatrics and
‖Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Allison M. Port
¶Brain and Behavior Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ruben C. Gur
¶Brain and Behavior Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan L. Furth
*Division of Nephrology,
†Department of Pediatrics and
**Department of Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background and objectives Neurocognitive problems in CKD are well documented; time-efficient methods are needed to assess neurocognition in this population. We performed the first study of the efficient 1-hour Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (CNB) in children and young adults with CKD.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements We administered the Penn CNB cross-sectionally to individuals aged 8–25 years with stage 2–5 CKD (n=92, enrolled from three academic nephrology practices from 2011 to 2014) and matched healthy controls (n=69). We analyzed results from 12 tests in four domains: executive control, episodic memory, complex cognition, and social cognition. All tests measure accuracy and speed; we converted raw scores to age-specific z-scores on the basis of Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (n=1790) norms. We analyzed each test in a linear regression with accuracy and speed z-scores as dependent variables and with (1) CKD versus control or (2) eGFR as explanatory variables, adjusted for race, sex, and maternal education.

Results Patients with CKD (mean±SD eGFR, 48±25 ml/min per 1.73 m2; mean age, 16.3±3.9 years) and controls (mean eGFR, 98±20 ml/min per 1.73 m2; mean age, 16.0±4.0 years) were similar demographically. CKD participants had lower accuracy than controls in tests of complex cognition, with moderate to large effect sizes: −0.53 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], −0.87 to −0.19) for verbal reasoning, −0.52 (95% CI, −0.83 to −0.22) for nonverbal reasoning, and −0.64 (95% CI, −0.99 to −0.29) for spatial processing. For attention, patients with CKD had lower accuracy (effect size, −0.35 [95% CI, −0.67 to −0.03]) but faster response times (effect size, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.83]) than controls, perhaps reflecting greater impulsivity. Lower eGFR was associated with lower accuracy for complex cognition, facial and visual memory, and emotion identification tests.

Conclusions CKD is associated with lower accuracy in tests of complex cognition, attention, memory, and emotion identification, which related to eGFR. These findings are consistent with traditional neurocognitive testing in previous studies.

  • chronic kidney disease
  • psychological tests
  • attention
  • executive function
  • memory
  • neuropsychological
  • children, adolescents
  • cognition
  • humans

Introduction

Neurocognitive problems have been well documented in children and adults with CKD. Children with CKD show impairments in attention, memory, executive functioning, language, visual-spatial abilities, and academic achievement (1–4), while adults with CKD have increased risk of cognitive impairment and dementia (5–9). Impaired cognitive function has been linked to poor treatment adherence in multiple disease states, including kidney transplantation (10–13). Improved characterization of cognitive dysfunction in children and adults with CKD could therefore allow clinicians to implement targeted interventions (1,14,15) and provide more effective patient communication to promote adherence. A significant barrier to increased neurodevelopmental surveillance of patients with CKD, however, is the costly and time-intensive nature of traditional neurocognitive test batteries. Neuropsychological evaluations are often not completed in tandem with clinical care visits, which further limits the utility of cognitive assessment of changes related to disease status.

The Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (CNB) was developed to provide an efficient method to assess performance in a range of cognitive domains linked to specific brain systems (16). The Penn CNB takes an average of 1 hour to complete and provides measures of accuracy and speed in tests spanning five areas of neurobehavioral function: executive control, episodic memory, complex cognition, social cognition, and sensorimotor speed. Results from the Penn CNB were similar to those of traditional neuropsychological testing in a healthy normative sample (17) and in adult patients with schizophrenia (18). The Penn CNB was also applied in the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC), a large-scale community genomic study of brain development, which generated normative data in children and young adults aged 8–21 years (19).

To our knowledge, the current study is the first systematic investigation of the Penn CNB in children and young adults with CKD. The goal of this study was to use the Penn CNB to characterize neurocognitive function in children and young adults with CKD and in healthy controls. We also sought to examine whether findings in the Penn CNB are similar to those from previous studies that used traditional neurocognitive testing in children and young adults with CKD. We hypothesized that the Penn CNB would reveal deficits in domains similar to those identified in previous studies, including language, visual-spatial ability, memory, and executive functioning (1,4).

Materials and Methods

The Penn CNB was investigated within the Neurocognitive Assessment and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis of Children and Young Adults with Chronic Kidney Disease (NiCK) Study. The NiCK study is a cross-sectional investigation of children and young adults, aged 8–25 years, with stage 2–5 CKD (eGFR<90 ml/min per 1.73 m2, including dialysis and post-transplant) compared with healthy controls matched on age, sex, and socioeconomic status (using insurance status as a proxy). Complete inclusion and exclusion criteria for the NiCK Study have been published elsewhere (20). Eligible patients with CKD were identified by manual review of medical records of patients who were scheduled to be seen in nephrology clinics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, and the Nemours Hospital for Children during the recruitment period (August 2011–October 2014); patients were invited to participate at their regular nephrology clinic visits. Healthy controls were identified from CHOP general practice locations and were invited to participate in the study via mail. Those who were interested in participating contacted the study coordinator at CHOP to be screened and enrolled. Patients with comorbidities that independently affect brain function (e.g., seizure disorder, traumatic brain injury, genetic syndromes) or the ability to complete test measures (profound developmental disabilities) were excluded from participating to ensure that study results reflect the effects of kidney disease. The institutional review board of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia approved the study, and the study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants and/or guardians provided written informed consent.

The Penn CNB includes 14 tests assessing five neurobehavioral functions: executive control, episodic memory, complex cognition, social cognition, and praxis speed. Except for praxis speed (results of which were not analyzed for the current study), all tests measure both accuracy (number of correct responses) and speed (response time for correct items).

For the current analysis, raw scores for accuracy and speed for each test were converted to age-specific z-scores based on the performance of a cohort of 1790 typically developing healthy children and young adults selected from the larger PNC study (19). From this cohort, scores were collapsed in 2-year intervals to form the basis for the development of the z-scores. We selected 2-year intervals to ensure adequate numbers of participants within each age interval and to minimize the effect of normal variability in the rate of development of neurocognitive skills (21). For ease of interpretation, z-scores were calculated such that higher z-scores always reflect better performance (i.e., higher accuracy and shorter response times correspond to higher z-scores).

To assess the neurocognitive effects of CKD, we performed linear regression analysis, with z-scores for accuracy and speed for each test as the dependent variables and either (1) diagnostic group (CKD versus healthy control) or (2) eGFR as the explanatory variables. Analyses were adjusted for race (black versus nonblack race), sex, and maternal education (in years). To examine whether inclusion of transplant recipients in the CKD group affected our results, we also performed a sensitivity analysis comparing the CKD and control groups after excluding transplant recipients.

The performance of CKD participants was compared with that of a concurrently recruited cohort of healthy control participants in order to minimize confounding due to differences in test administration (e.g., environment, staff, and timing) between NiCK study participants and the historical PNC cohort.

Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared between the CKD and control groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables, the Fisher exact test for categorical variables, and the Kruskal-Wallis test for ordinal variables.

As a secondary analysis, we also compared Penn CNB performance for CKD participants with that of the reference population of 1790 healthy individuals from the PNC study. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed to determine whether observed median age-specific z-scores for accuracy and speed in each subtest for the CKD group significantly differed from the expected median z-scores of 0.

Data were analyzed using R software, version 3.1.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, www.R-project.org). The significance level for all data analyses was set at P=0.05 (two-sided).

Results

Clinical and Demographic Characteristics

Penn CNB results were analyzed for 92 patients with CKD and 69 controls. Clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with CKD and controls are shown in Table 1. CKD and control participants were of similar age. Slightly higher proportions of patients with CKD were male, of Hispanic ethnicity, and from households with income <$30,000/year, but these differences were not statistically significant. A higher proportion of control participants was black, but this difference was also not statistically significant. Level of maternal education was slightly higher in the control group than in the CKD group (14.7 versus 13.6 years; P=0.03). As expected, patients with CKD had lower mean eGFR than controls (48 versus 98 ml/min per 1.73 m2; P<0.001). One quarter of patients with CKD had functioning transplants and 3% were receiving dialysis at the time of their study visit.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with CKD and controls

Group Comparisons of Patients with CKD versus Controls

As a group, patients with CKD showed significantly lower accuracy scores than controls in tests assessing complex cognition, with moderate to large effect sizes: −0.53 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], −0.87 to −0.19) for verbal reasoning (P=0.002), −0.52 (95% CI, −0.83 to −0.22) for nonverbal reasoning (P=0.001), and −0.64 (95% CI, −0.99 to −0.29) for spatial processing (P<0.001). Accuracy scores for attention were also lower in patients with CKD than controls (effect size, −0.35 [95% CI, −0.67 to −0.03]; P=0.03). There were no statistically significant differences in group comparisons between patients with CKD and controls in accuracy scores for tests assessing other domains of executive control (abstraction/mental flexibility and working memory). In addition, group comparisons between patients with CKD and controls did not detect any statistically significant differences in accuracy scores for tests assessing episodic memory or social cognition (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Group differences between patients with CKD and control participants in z-scores for accuracy and speed in each Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery subtest, adjusted for race, sex, and maternal education

Comparison of speed scores between patients with CKD and controls revealed only one test with a statistically significant group difference in performance: Patients with CKD had higher speed scores (i.e., faster responses for correct items) than control participants for attention (effect size, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.83]; P=0.03) (Table 2).

Sensitivity analysis excluding kidney transplant recipients from the CKD group yielded similar results (results not shown).

Relationship of Penn CNB Results with eGFR

In analyses using eGFR as a continuous explanatory variable, higher eGFR was associated with higher accuracy performance on all three subtests assessing the domains of complex cognition: For every 10–ml/min per 1.73 m2 higher eGFR, accuracy z-score for verbal reasoning was higher by 0.09 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.14; P=0.001 for regression); for nonverbal reasoning, it was higher by 0.06 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.11; P=0.01); and for spatial processing, it was higher by 0.10 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.16; P<0.001) (Figure 1A). In addition, higher eGFR was associated with higher accuracy in two of the three memory domains: For every 10–ml/min per 1.73 m2 higher eGFR, accuracy z-score for facial memory was higher by 0.06 (95% CI, 0.01–0.12; P=0.02) and for spatial memory was higher by 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.14; P=0.004). Higher eGFR was also associated with higher accuracy performance in emotion identification, one of the three subtests comprising social cognition: For every 10–ml/min per 1.73 m2 higher eGFR, z-score was higher by 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.13; P=0.01). There were no significant relationships between eGFR and accuracy performance in executive control, verbal memory, or the other domains of social cognition (Figure 1A). There were no statistically significant associations between eGFR and speed performance in any domains (Figure 1B).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Differences in z-scores for accuracy and speed per 10–ml/min per 1.73 m2 higher eGFR for each Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery subtest. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (error bars) for z-score differences are shown, adjusted for race, sex, and maternal education. (A) Accuracy. (B) Speed. ADT, Age Differentiation Test; CPF, Penn Face Memory; CPW, Penn Word Memory; ER40, Penn Emotion Identification Test; MEDF, Penn Emotion Differentiation Test; PCET, Penn Conditional Exclusion Test; PCPT, Penn Continuous Performance Test; PLOT, Penn Line Orientation Test; PMAT, Penn Matrix Reasoning Test; PVRT, Penn Verbal Reasoning Test; SLNB, Short Letter N-Back Test; VOLT, Visual Object Learning Test.

Comparison of Patients with CKD versus Reference Population from PNC Study

Median z-scores for accuracy and speed in each Penn CNB subtest for participants with CKD are shown in Supplemental Table 1. Similar to our findings in the group comparisons described in the preceding section, accuracy z-scores for patients with CKD were lowest in tests assessing complex cognition. These scores differed from the expected z-score of 0 from the PNC study reference population with a high degree of statistical significance. Median z-scores for patients with CKD were −0.49 for verbal reasoning (Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.83 to −0.37 [P<0.001] for difference from PNC population), −0.54 for nonverbal reasoning (Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.69 to −0.28; P<0.001), and −0.45 for spatial processing (Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.60 to −0.16; P=0.001). Patients with CKD also had lower median accuracy z-scores than the reference population in several other subtests, albeit with somewhat smaller effect sizes. These included tests assessing episodic memory (−0.21 for verbal memory [Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.62 to −0.04; P=0.01], −0.40 for facial memory [Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.64 to −0.13; P=0.004], and −0.30 for spatial memory [Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.53 to −0.05; P=0.02]), one subtest of social cognition (−0.34 for age differentiation [Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.59 to −0.13; P=0.01]), and two subtests of executive control (−0.24 for abstraction/mental flexibility [Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.48 to -−0.04; P=0.03] and −0.04 for working memory [Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.52 to −0.09; P=0.01]) (Supplemental Table 1).

Comparison of speed z-scores for patients with CKD with the PNC study reference population showed that patients with CKD had lower median speed z-scores for attention (−0.33 [Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.65 to −0.20; P<0.001]) and emotion identification (−0.17 [Wilcoxon 95% CI, −0.42 to −0.06; P=0.01]) but had higher speed z-scores for nonverbal reasoning (0.47 [Wilcoxon 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.50; P<0.001]) (Supplemental Table 1).

Discussion

Neurocognitive dysfunction is an important consequence of CKD and can have far-reaching social, economic, and health effects. On an individual level, neurocognitive impairment affects school performance (22,23), employment (24,25), and health care self-management (13), particularly when complex medical regimens are prescribed (26). From a societal perspective, this translates to increased burden on school and health systems and health insurance programs. Despite the importance of neurocognitive dysfunction in CKD, measuring these deficits in clinical research settings can be difficult given the cost and availability of traditional neurocognitive testing. We therefore sought to evaluate the use of a computerized testing method, the Penn CNB, in children and young adults with CKD.

In this study, we compared Penn CNB performance of children and youth with CKD with that of concurrently recruited health controls matched for age and socioeconomic status in the NiCK study. In addition, because of the wide range of eGFRs within our CKD cohort, we also examined the relationship between Penn CNB performance and eGFR. We found that patients with CKD as a group had significantly lower accuracy performance than controls in all three subtests of complex cognition (verbal and nonverbal reasoning and spatial processing). Group comparisons also revealed lower accuracy performance for attention in the patients with CKD. Notably, however, patients with CKD had faster response times than controls in the test for attention. This trade-off of accuracy for speed was found in a prior study of the Penn CNB evaluating age- and sex-related differences in performance (22). In that study of individuals aged 8–21 years, male participants were faster but less accurate than female participants in the test of attention, a finding attributed to greater impulsivity in males (22,27). Although our CKD sample did have a slightly higher proportion of male participants compared with the control group (Table 1), our analyses were adjusted for sex, suggesting a CKD-specific effect on impulsivity.

In a separate regression analysis, we found that lower eGFR was associated with lower accuracy performance in complex cognition, facial memory, spatial memory, and emotion identification.

As a secondary analysis, we also compared the performance of patients with CKD in the Penn CNB with that of a reference population of healthy children and young adults in the PNC study. Similar to our comparisons with the concurrent NiCK study control group, these analyses showed that patients with CKD had significantly lower than expected accuracy performance in tests of complex cognition. Patients with CKD also had lower than expected accuracy performance in tests of episodic memory, executive control, and social cognition.

Previous studies in children with CKD using traditional testing methods have demonstrated deficits in attention, memory, executive functioning, language, visual-spatial abilities, and academic achievement (1–4). The pattern of the findings uncovered using the Penn CNB in the current study show significant overlap with previous studies. However, the association between lower eGFR and lower accuracy in emotion identification is a relatively novel finding that adds to the knowledge base about the neurocognitive profile of CKD and may strengthen the utility of the Penn CNB. Measures of social cognition are not widely used in traditional neurocognitive testing, which may contribute to under-recognition of these deficits. One prior study in pediatric kidney transplant recipients demonstrated impairment in recognizing emotional states (14). A recent study in adult kidney transplant patients revealed that alexithymia (the inability to recognize and express emotions) is positively correlated with noncompliance (28), underscoring the importance of recognizing deficits in social cognition. These findings support further investigation and validation of the Penn CNB in CKD populations.

The Penn CNB is a cognitive neuroscience–based assessment that was developed on the basis of tasks shown experimentally to map to specific brain systems with functional neuroimaging studies (16) (available for download by investigators at http://www.med.upenn.edu/bbl). The domains showing decreased Penn CNB performance in CKD in our study are expected to map to several functional areas: bilateral temporo-parietal regions (complex cognition), frontal and bilateral anterior medial temporal lobes (episodic memory), frontal-parietal network (attention), and temporo-limbic regions (emotion identification) (16). The mechanisms by which CKD leads to neurocognitive alterations are poorly understood but are likely related to both metabolic derangements (29) and subclinical vascular disease (30). Ongoing analysis of findings from multimodal magnetic resonance imaging performed in the NiCK study will help to identify any regional changes in brain structure, functional connectivity, and cerebral blood flow associated with CKD and will help to shed further light on the neuropathology associated with CKD (20).

Strengths of this study include the direct comparison of neurocognitive performance of patients with CKD with that of a concurrently recruited cohort of healthy controls matched for age and socioeconomic status, rather than solely with historical controls or population-based normative samples. This decreases the potential for variability in neurocognitive performance arising from different testing conditions or other environmental factors. Although we consider our primary analysis to be the more rigorous one for this reason, our secondary analysis comparing our CKD group to the larger PNC study reference population strengthens our findings. In both analyses, participants with CKD had significantly lower accuracy in all three subtests of complex cognition (verbal and nonverbal reasoning and spatial processing).

Some demographic variables differed between the CKD and control groups, but our statistical analyses controlled for these by adjusting for important covariates, such as maternal education, race, and sex. However, we cannot exclude the effects of other unmeasured confounders on our results. Unmeasured confounders may also have affected our comparisons with the historical PNC reference population. Another potential limitation is the heterogeneity of our CKD group, which had a wide range of kidney function and also included post-transplant participants. However, sensitivity analysis excluding transplant recipients from the CKD group yielded similar results. Another potential limitation to our study is its cross-sectional nature. Although we found that lower eGFR was associated with lower performance in certain neurocognitive domains, a cross-sectional study does not allow us to determine whether this relationship is causal. Although we performed multiple analyses, here we report significant findings using P<0.05. However, the group differences between CKD and control participants in complex cognition performance in both our primary and secondary analyses were significant enough that they would have survived even the conservative Bonferroni correction (α=0.05/12=0.004).

The Penn CNB offers an efficient method for neurocognitive assessment of children and young adults with CKD. As a novel approach to assessing neurocognitive function, the Penn CNB demonstrates findings consistent with prior reports of poorer performance using traditional neurocognitive batteries in children with CKD. The Penn CNB’s ease of administration and the shortened time needed compare favorably to administration of a traditional neurocognitive battery. The Penn CNB may therefore facilitate increased collection of standardized neurocognitive data in a wider variety of clinical research settings and could allow further exploration of risk factors for cognitive dysfunction in CKD. A better understanding of neurocognitive functioning in dysfunction in patients with CKD may have important implications for how we communicate health care information, promote adherence, and tailor treatment plans as disease progresses.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgments

E.A.H is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award KL2TR000139. The NiCK study is funded, in part, under a Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement grant with the Pennsylvania Department of Health, SAP 4100054843. The Clinical and Translational Research Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia is supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the NCATS, NIH, through grants UL1RR024134 and UL1TR000003.

Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) (31) is a secure, web-based application designed to support data capture for research studies, providing (1) an intuitive interface for validated data entry, (2) audit trails for tracking data manipulation and export procedures, (3) automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages, and (4) procedures for importing data from external sources.

The data reported here were presented in abstract form at the American Society of Nephrology Kidney Week 2014.

The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NCATS or the NIH. The Pennsylvania Department of Health specifically disclaims responsibility for any analyses, interpretations or conclusions from this study.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • This article contains supplemental material online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2215/CJN.02110215/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Received February 23, 2015.
  • Accepted September 15, 2015.
  • Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Gipson DS,
    2. Hooper SR,
    3. Duquette PJ,
    4. Wetherington CE,
    5. Stellwagen KK,
    6. Jenkins TL,
    7. Ferris ME
    : Memory and executive functions in pediatric chronic kidney disease. Child Neuropsychol 12: 391–405, 2006pmid:16952886
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Slickers J,
    2. Duquette P,
    3. Hooper S,
    4. Gipson D
    : Clinical predictors of neurocognitive deficits in children with chronic kidney disease. Pediatr Nephrol 22: 565–572, 2007pmid:17180361
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gipson DS,
    2. Duquette PJ,
    3. Icard PF,
    4. Hooper SR
    : The central nervous system in childhood chronic kidney disease. Pediatr Nephrol 22: 1703–1710, 2007pmid:17072652
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Hooper SR,
    2. Gerson AC,
    3. Butler RW,
    4. Gipson DS,
    5. Mendley SR,
    6. Lande MB,
    7. Shinnar S,
    8. Wentz A,
    9. Matheson M,
    10. Cox C,
    11. Furth SL,
    12. Warady BA
    : Neurocognitive functioning of children and adolescents with mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 1824–1830, 2011pmid:21737850
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Elias MF,
    2. Elias PK,
    3. Seliger SL,
    4. Narsipur SS,
    5. Dore GA,
    6. Robbins MA
    : Chronic kidney disease, creatinine and cognitive functioning. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24: 2446–2452, 2009pmid:19297357
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Elias MF,
    2. Dore GA,
    3. Davey A
    : Kidney disease and cognitive function. Contrib Nephrol 179: 42–57, 2013pmid:23652448
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kurella M,
    2. Chertow GM,
    3. Luan J,
    4. Yaffe K
    : Cognitive impairment in chronic kidney disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 52: 1863–1869, 2004pmid:15507063
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Madan P,
    2. Kalra OP,
    3. Agarwal S,
    4. Tandon OP
    : Cognitive impairment in chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22: 440–444, 2007pmid:17023495
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Kalirao P,
    2. Pederson S,
    3. Foley RN,
    4. Kolste A,
    5. Tupper D,
    6. Zaun D,
    7. Buot V,
    8. Murray AM
    : Cognitive impairment in peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 57: 612–620, 2011pmid:21295896
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Stilley CS,
    2. Bender CM,
    3. Dunbar-Jacob J,
    4. Sereika S,
    5. Ryan CM
    : The impact of cognitive function on medication management: Three studies. Health Psychol 29: 50–55, 2010pmid:20063935
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Alosco ML,
    2. Spitznagel MB,
    3. van Dulmen M,
    4. Raz N,
    5. Cohen R,
    6. Sweet LH,
    7. Colbert LH,
    8. Josephson R,
    9. Hughes J,
    10. Rosneck J,
    11. Gunstad J
    : Cognitive function and treatment adherence in older adults with heart failure. Psychosom Med 74: 965–973, 2012pmid:23115344
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hinkin CH,
    2. Hardy DJ,
    3. Mason KI,
    4. Castellon SA,
    5. Durvasula RS,
    6. Lam MN,
    7. Stefaniak M
    : Medication adherence in HIV-infected adults: Effect of patient age, cognitive status, and substance abuse. AIDS 18[Suppl 1]: S19–S25, 2004pmid:15075494
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Gelb SR,
    2. Shapiro RJ,
    3. Thornton WJL
    : Predicting medication adherence and employment status following kidney transplant: The relative utility of traditional and everyday cognitive approaches. Neuropsychology 24: 514–526, 2010pmid:20604625
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Haavisto A,
    2. Korkman M,
    3. Holmberg C,
    4. Jalanko H,
    5. Qvist E
    : Neuropsychological profile of children with kidney transplants. Nephrol Dial Transplant 27: 2594–2601, 2012pmid:22140125
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Duquette PJ,
    2. Hooper SR,
    3. Icard PF,
    4. Hower SJ,
    5. Mamak EG,
    6. Wetherington CE,
    7. Gipson DS
    : Neurodevelopmental status and adaptive behaviors in preschool children with chronic kidney disease. J Spec Educ 43: 45–51, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Gur RC,
    2. Richard J,
    3. Hughett P,
    4. Calkins ME,
    5. Macy L,
    6. Bilker WB,
    7. Brensinger C,
    8. Gur RE
    : A cognitive neuroscience-based computerized battery for efficient measurement of individual differences: Standardization and initial construct validation. J Neurosci Methods 187: 254–262, 2010pmid:19945485
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Gur RC,
    2. Ragland JD,
    3. Moberg PJ,
    4. Turner TH,
    5. Bilker WB,
    6. Kohler C,
    7. Siegel SJ,
    8. Gur RE
    : Computerized neurocognitive scanning: I. Methodology and validation in healthy people. Neuropsychopharmacology 25: 766–776, 2001pmid:11682260
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Gur RC,
    2. Ragland JD,
    3. Moberg PJ,
    4. Bilker WB,
    5. Kohler C,
    6. Siegel SJ,
    7. Gur RE
    : Computerized neurocognitive scanning: II. The profile of schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology 25: 777–788, 2001pmid:11682261
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Gur RC,
    2. Richard J,
    3. Calkins ME,
    4. Chiavacci R,
    5. Hansen JA,
    6. Bilker WB,
    7. Loughead J,
    8. Connolly JJ,
    9. Qiu H,
    10. Mentch FD,
    11. Abou-Sleiman PM,
    12. Hakonarson H,
    13. Gur RE
    : Age group and sex differences in performance on a computerized neurocognitive battery in children age 8-21. Neuropsychology 26: 251–265, 2012pmid:22251308
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Hartung EA,
    2. Laney N,
    3. Kim JY,
    4. Ruebner RL,
    5. Detre JA,
    6. Liu H-S,
    7. Davatzikos C,
    8. Erus G,
    9. Doshi JJ,
    10. Schultz RT,
    11. Herrington JD,
    12. Jawad AF,
    13. Moodalbail DG,
    14. Gur RC,
    15. Port AM,
    16. Radcliffe J,
    17. Hooper SR,
    18. Furth SL
    : Design and methods of the NiCK study: Neurocognitive assessment and magnetic resonance imaging analysis of children and young adults with chronic kidney disease. BMC Nephrol 16: 66, 2015pmid:25924831
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Roalf DR,
    2. Gur RE,
    3. Ruparel K,
    4. Calkins ME,
    5. Satterthwaite TD,
    6. Bilker WB,
    7. Hakonarson H,
    8. Harris LJ,
    9. Gur RC
    : Within-individual variability in neurocognitive performance: Age- and sex-related differences in children and youths from ages 8 to 21. Neuropsychology 28: 506–518, 2014pmid:24773417
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Broyer M,
    2. Le Bihan C,
    3. Charbit M,
    4. Guest G,
    5. Tete M-J,
    6. Gagnadoux MF,
    7. Niaudet P
    : Long-term social outcome of children after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 77: 1033–1037, 2004pmid:15087767
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Duquette PJ,
    2. Hooper SR,
    3. Wetherington CE,
    4. Icard PF,
    5. Gipson DS
    : Brief report: Intellectual and academic functioning in pediatric chronic kidney disease. J Pediatr Psychol 32: 1011–1017, 2007pmid:17556399
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Kalechstein AD,
    2. Newton TF,
    3. van Gorp WG
    : Neurocognitive functioning is associated with employment status: A quantitative review. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 25: 1186–1191, 2003pmid:14566590
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Groothoff JW,
    2. Grootenhuis MA,
    3. Offringa M,
    4. Stronks K,
    5. Hutten GJ,
    6. Heymans HSA
    : Social consequences in adult life of end-stage renal disease in childhood. J Pediatr 146: 512–517, 2005pmid:15812455
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Hinkin CH,
    2. Castellon SA,
    3. Durvasula RS,
    4. Hardy DJ,
    5. Lam MN,
    6. Mason KI,
    7. Thrasher D,
    8. Goetz MB,
    9. Stefaniak M
    : Medication adherence among HIV+ adults: Effects of cognitive dysfunction and regimen complexity. Neurology 59: 1944–1950, 2002pmid:12499488
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Cross CP,
    2. Copping LT,
    3. Campbell A
    : Sex differences in impulsivity: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 137: 97–130, 2011pmid:21219058
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Calia R,
    2. Lai C,
    3. Aceto P,
    4. Luciani M,
    5. Camardese G,
    6. Lai S,
    7. Fantozzi C,
    8. Pietroni V,
    9. Salerno MP,
    10. Spagnoletti G,
    11. Pedroso JA,
    12. Romagnoli J,
    13. Citterio F
    : Emotional self-efficacy and alexithymia may affect compliance, renal function and quality of life in kidney transplant recipients: Results from a preliminary cross-sectional study. Physiol Behav 142: 152–154, 2015pmid:25680476
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Tryc AB,
    2. Alwan G,
    3. Bokemeyer M,
    4. Goldbecker A,
    5. Hecker H,
    6. Haubitz M,
    7. Weissenborn K
    : Cerebral metabolic alterations and cognitive dysfunction in chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26: 2635–2641, 2011pmid:21216887
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Bugnicourt J-M,
    2. Godefroy O,
    3. Chillon J-M,
    4. Choukroun G,
    5. Massy ZA
    : Cognitive disorders and dementia in CKD: The neglected kidney-brain axis. J Am Soc Nephrol 24: 353–363, 2013pmid:23291474
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Harris PA,
    2. Taylor R,
    3. Thielke R,
    4. Payne J,
    5. Gonzalez N,
    6. Conde JG
    : Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42: 377–381, 2009pmid:18929686
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Schwartz GJ,
    2. Muñoz A,
    3. Schneider MF,
    4. Mak RH,
    5. Kaskel F,
    6. Warady BA,
    7. Furth SL
    : New equations to estimate GFR in children with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol 20: 629–637, 2009pmid:19158356
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Levey AS,
    2. Coresh J,
    3. Greene T,
    4. Stevens LA,
    5. Zhang YL,
    6. Hendriksen S,
    7. Kusek JW,
    8. Van Lente F,
    9. Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration
    : Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 145: 247–254, 2006pmid:16908915
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 11 (1)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 11, Issue 1
January 07, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evaluation of Neurocognition in Youth with CKD Using a Novel Computerized Neurocognitive Battery
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Evaluation of Neurocognition in Youth with CKD Using a Novel Computerized Neurocognitive Battery
Erum A. Hartung, Ji Young Kim, Nina Laney, Stephen R. Hooper, Jerilynn Radcliffe, Allison M. Port, Ruben C. Gur, Susan L. Furth
CJASN Jan 2016, 11 (1) 39-46; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02110215

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Evaluation of Neurocognition in Youth with CKD Using a Novel Computerized Neurocognitive Battery
Erum A. Hartung, Ji Young Kim, Nina Laney, Stephen R. Hooper, Jerilynn Radcliffe, Allison M. Port, Ruben C. Gur, Susan L. Furth
CJASN Jan 2016, 11 (1) 39-46; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02110215
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

Original Articles

  • Acute Kidney Injury among Black Patients with Sickle Cell Trait and Sickle Cell Disease
  • Acute Kidney Injury, Microvascular Rarefaction, and Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate in Kidney Transplant Recipients
  • The Association of Time to Organ Procurement on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Kidney Transplantation
Show more Original Articles

Chronic Kidney Disease

  • NAT8 Variants, N-Acetylated Amino Acids, and Progression of CKD
  • Combination Treatment with Sodium Nitrite and Isoquercetin on Endothelial Dysfunction among Patients with CKD
  • Effect of Urate-Lowering Therapy on Cardiovascular and Kidney Outcomes
Show more Chronic Kidney Disease

Cited By...

  • Cognitive Function and Uremic Toxins after Kidney Transplantation: An Exploratory Study
  • Development of a computerised neurocognitive battery for children and adolescents with HIV in Botswana: study design and protocol for the Ntemoga study
  • Neurocognitive and Educational Outcomes in Children and Adolescents with CKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • chronic kidney disease
  • psychological tests
  • Attention
  • Executive Function
  • Memory
  • neuropsychological
  • children, adolescents
  • Cognition
  • humans

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire