Snitz Beth E, Saxton Judith, Lopez Oscar L, Ives Diane G, Dunn Leslie O, Rapp Stephen R, Carlson Michelle C, Fitzpatrick Annette L, Dekosky Steven T
Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh.
Aging Ment Health. 2009 Mar;13(2):171-82. doi: 10.1080/13607860802380656.
To identify, characterize and compare the frequency of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subtypes at baseline in a large, late-life cohort (n = 3063) recruited into a dementia prevention trial.
A retrospective, data-algorithmic approach was used to classify participants as cognitively normal or MCI with corresponding subtype (e.g. amnestic vs. non-amnestic, single domain vs. multiple domain) based on a comprehensive battery of neuropsychological test scores, with and without Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score included in the algorithm.
Overall, 15.7% of cases (n = 480) were classified as MCI. Amnestic MCI was characterized as unilateral memory impairment (i.e. only verbal or only visual memory impaired) or bilateral memory impairment (i.e. both verbal and visual memory impaired). All forms of amnestic MCI were almost twice as frequent as non-amnestic MCI (10.0% vs. 5.7%). Removing the CDR = 0.5 ('questionable dementia') criterion resulted in a near doubling of the overall MCI frequency to 28.1%.
Combining CDR and cognitive test data to classify participants as MCI resulted in overall MCI and amnestic MCI frequencies consistent with other large community-based studies, most of which relied on the 'gold standard' of individual case review and diagnostic consensus. The present data-driven approach may prove to be an effective alternative for use in future large-scale dementia prevention trials.
在一项痴呆症预防试验招募的大型老年队列(n = 3063)中,识别、描述并比较基线时轻度认知障碍(MCI)亚型的频率。
采用回顾性数据算法方法,根据一系列全面的神经心理学测试分数,将参与者分类为认知正常或MCI以及相应的亚型(例如遗忘型与非遗忘型、单领域与多领域),算法中纳入或未纳入临床痴呆评定量表(CDR)整体评分。
总体而言,15.7%的病例(n = 480)被分类为MCI。遗忘型MCI的特征为单侧记忆损害(即仅言语记忆或仅视觉记忆受损)或双侧记忆损害(即言语和视觉记忆均受损)。所有形式的遗忘型MCI的发生率几乎是非遗忘型MCI的两倍(10.0%对5.7%)。去除CDR = 0.5(“可疑痴呆”)标准后,总体MCI频率几乎翻倍至28.1%。
结合CDR和认知测试数据将参与者分类为MCI,得出的总体MCI和遗忘型MCI频率与其他大型社区研究一致,其中大多数研究依赖于个体病例审查和诊断共识的“金标准”。目前这种数据驱动的方法可能被证明是未来大规模痴呆症预防试验中一种有效的替代方法。