4.7 Article

Functional deficits in patients with mild cognitive impairment - Prediction of AD

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 58, 期 5, 页码 758-764

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.58.5.758

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG17761] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH50038, T32 MH020004] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the predictive utility of self-reported and informant-reported functional deficits in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) for the follow-up diagnosis of probable AD. Methods: The Pfeffer Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) and Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Scale were administered at baseline. Patients were followed at 6-month intervals, and matched normal control subjects (NC) were followed annually. Results: Self-reported deficits were higher for patients with MCI than for NC. At baseline, self- and informant-reported functional deficits were significantly greater for patients who converted to AD on follow-up evaluation than for patients who did not convert, even after controlling for age, education, and modified Mini-Mental State Examination scores. While converters showed significantly more informant- than self-reported deficits at baseline, nonconverters showed the reverse pattern. Survival analyses further revealed that informant-reported deficits (but not self-reported deficits) and a discrepancy score indicating greater informant- than self-reported functional deficits significantly predicted the development of AD. The discrepancy index showed high specificity and sensitivity for progression to AD within 2 years. Conclusions: These findings indicate that in patients with MCI, the patient's lack of awareness of functional deficits identified by informants strongly predicts a future diagnosis of AD. If replicated, these findings suggest that clinicians evaluating MCI patients should obtain both self-reports and informant reports of functional deficits to help in prediction of long-term outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据