4.2 Article

Clinical Dementia Rating Orientation Score as an Excellent Predictor of the Progression to Alzheimer's Disease in Mild Cognitive Impairment

Journal

PSYCHIATRY INVESTIGATION
Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages 420-426

Publisher

KOREAN NEUROPSYCHIATRIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.4306/pi.2017.14.4.420

Keywords

Mild cognitive impairment; Alzheimer's disease; Clinical Dementia Rating; Orientation; Prediction

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning, Republic of Korea [NRF-2014M3C7A1046042]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective This study aimed to examine the usefulness of each subscale score of the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) for predicting Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia progression in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) elderly subjects. Methods Fifty-nine elderly MCI individuals were recruited from a university dementia and memory disorder clinic. Standardized clinical and neuropsychological tests were performed both at baseline and at the time of 2 years follow-up. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the ability of various clinical measures or their combinations to predict progression to AD dementia in MCI individuals. Results MCIp individuals showed significantly higher CDR Orientation subscale and CDR sum-of-boxes (SOB) score than MCInp ones, while there were no significant differences in other CDR subscale scores between the two. MCIp individuals also showed marginally higher MMSE scores than MCInp ones. A series of logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the model including CDR Orientation subscale had better AD dementia prediction accuracy than either the model with either MMSE or CDR-SOB. Conclusion Our findings suggest that CDR Orientation subscale score, a simple and easily available clinical measure, could provide very useful information to predict AD dementia progression in amnestic MCI individuals in real clinical settings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available