Although numerous studies have shown that each neuropsychological test is effective for diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer’s disease (AD), studies comparing diagnostic accuracies of various neuropsychological tests are relatively rare and practical cutoff values are not available. The present study aimed to investigate the validity of neuropsychological tests and develop cutoff values for each in differentiating healthy control (HC), MCI and AD groups. A total of 84 HC, 187 with MCI and 195 with AD were evaluated by the selected seven neuropsychological tests using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Logical Memory (LM) delayed recall (cutoff, 7) and Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) delayed recall (cutoff, 6) were effective for differentiating HC from MCI. To distinguish MCI and AD, Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT) 3 mindelayed recall (cutoff, 6) and LM immediate recall (cutoff, 4) were excellent. Delayed recall of verbal materials, as indexed by LM and RAVLT was sensitive for discriminating MCI from HC. Handling visual memory traces, as indexed by ROCFT and immediate verbal information by LM were sensitive for differentiating MCI and AD.
Alzheimer Disease ; Dementia ; Neuropsychological Tests

The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014. In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as grade 1 (strong) or grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system. The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (1) prophylactic treatment, (2) diagnosis, (3) biliary drainage, (4) surgical treatment, (5) chemotherapy, and (6) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded. This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.