4.5 Article

The recency ratio as predictor of early MCI

Journal

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
Volume 30, Issue 12, Pages 1883-1888

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610218000467

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; recency ratio; serial position; early MCI

Funding

  1. NIA [R01AG27161]
  2. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1TR000427]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) present poor immediate primacy recall accompanied by intact or exaggerated recency, which then tends to decline after a delay. Bruno et al. (Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, Vol. 38, 2016, pp. 967-973) have shown that higher ratio scores between immediate and delayed recency (i.e. the recency ratio; Rr) are associated with cognitive decline in high-functioning older individuals. We tested whether Rr predicted conversion to early mild cognitive impairment (early MCI) from a cognitively healthy baseline. Design: Data were analyzed longitudinally with binomial regression. Baseline scores were used to predict conversion to early MCI after approximately nine years. Setting: Data were collected at the Wisconsin Registry of Alzheimer's Prevention, in Madison, Wisconsin. Participants: For the study, 427 individuals were included in the analysis; all participants were 50 years of age or older and cognitively intact at baseline, and were native English speakers. Measurements: Memory data were collected using the Rey's Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and the early MCI diagnosis was obtained via consensus conference. Results: Our results showed that higher Rr scores are correlated with greater risk of later early MCI diagnosis, and this association is independent of total recall performance. Conclusions: Rr is an emerging cognitive marker of cognitive decline.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available