4.6 Article

The Goteborg MCI study:: mild cognitive impairment is a heterogeneous condition

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 76, Issue 11, Pages 1485-1490

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2004.050385

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been considered a transitional state between normal aging and dementia, characterised by memory impairment but normal general cognitive functioning. Recently other cognitive deficits have been reported. This has led to a modification of MCI criteria. Objective: To examine which neuropsychological tests most clearly distinguish MCI subjects from normal controls. Methods: 112 consecutive MCI subjects and 35 controls were included in the study. The diagnosis of MCI was based on an objective history of cognitive decline and a neuropsychiatric examination, comprising instruments STEP, I-Flex, MMSE, and CDR. Participants were examined with 21 neuropsychological tests in the cognitive domains speed/attention, memory and learning, visuospatial function, language, and executive function. Results: Controls were significantly older. No differences were found in education or general intellectual capacity. Controls performed significantly better than MCI on tests within all five cognitive domains. The clearest differences were seen on language tests, followed by executive function, and learning and memory. Only two subjects (1.8%) were purely amnestic; 17% showed no impairment compared with controls, with a cut off of 1.5 SD below age mean. These subjects were better educated and performed significantly better on measures of general cognitive capacity. Conclusions: The results illustrate the heterogeneity of MCI, with a significant degree of impairment in all five cognitive domains. When examined with a comprehensive neuropsychological battery, very few subjects had an isolated memory impairment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available