4.2 Article

Revised criteria for mild cognitive impairment: Validation within a longitudinal population study

Journal

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
Volume 22, Issue 5-6, Pages 465-470

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000096287

Keywords

mild cognitive impairment, revised criteria; cognition; ageing, normal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) refers to the transitional zone between normal ageing and dementia. Current criteria perform poorly within the general population setting. Revisions have been proposed based on results obtained from clinical and epidemiological studies. Objective: To evaluate revised diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI-R) incorporating changes in activity level and non-mnesic cognitive functioning. Method: MCI-R subjects were recruited from a representative network of general practitioners in the south of France. A computerized neuropsychometric examination was given. At 2 years of follow-up, a diagnosis of dementia was made by a neurologist using DSM-IIIR criteria and without knowledge of the results of the cognitive testing. Rates of conversion to incident dementia were assessed by receiver operating characteristics analysis. Results: The MCI-R prevalence was found to be 16.6% using revised criteria. A significantly better prediction of transition to dementia (AUC = 0.80, sensitivity: 95%, specificity: 66%) was obtained with MCI-R than with the previous MCI criteria ( AUC = 0.48, sensitivity: 5%, specificity: 91%). The predictive power was found to increase when MCI subtypes were combined. Conclusion: Incorporating the possibility of change in activity level and alteration of non-mnesic cognitive functions have been found to ameliorate the original algorithm and better define subjects converting to dementia. This definition may be applicable to both clinical and population research. Copyright (C) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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