Knopman David S, Beiser Alexa, Machulda Mary M, Fields Julie, Roberts Rosebud O, Pankratz V Shane, Aakre Jeremiah, Cha Ruth H, Rocca Walter A, Mielke Michelle M, Boeve Bradley F, Devine Sherral, Ivnik Robert J, Au Rhoda, Auerbach Sanford, Wolf Philip A, Seshadri Sudha, Petersen Ronald C
From the Department of Neurology, Mayo Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (D.S.K., B.F.B., R.C.P., R.O.R., W.A.R.), Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research (R.O.R., M.M. Mielke, W.A.R., R.C.P.), Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Health Sciences Research (V.S.P., J.A., R.H.C.), and Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Division of Neurocognitive Disorders (R.J.I., M.M. Machulda, J.F.), College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; and Departments of Neurology (A.B., S.D., R.A., S.A., P.A.W., S.S.) and Biostatistics (A.B.), Boston University Schools of Medicine and Public Health, MA.
Neurology. 2015 Nov 10;85(19):1712-21. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002100. Epub 2015 Oct 9.
To understand the neuropsychological basis of dementia risk among persons in the spectrum including cognitive normality and mild cognitive impairment.
We quantitated risk of progression to dementia in elderly persons without dementia from 2 population-based studies, the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), aged 70 to 89 years at enrollment. Baseline cognitive status was defined by performance in 4 domains derived from batteries of neuropsychological tests (that were similar but not identical for FHS and MCSA) at cut scores corresponding to SDs of ≤-0.5, -1, -1.5, and -2 from normative means. Participants were characterized as having no cognitive impairment (reference group), or single or multiple amnestic or nonamnestic profiles at each cut score. Incident dementia over the following 6 years was determined by consensus committee at each study separately.
The pattern of hazard ratios for incident dementia, rates of incident dementia and positive predictive values across cognitive test cut scores, and number of affected domains was similar although not identical across the FHS and MCSA. Dementia risks were higher for amnestic profiles than for nonamnestic profiles, and for multidomain compared with single-domain profiles.
Cognitive domain subtypes, defined by neuropsychologically derived cut scores and number of low-performing domains, differ substantially in prognosis in a conceptually logical manner that was consistent between FHS and MCSA. Neuropsychological characterization of elderly persons without dementia provides valuable information about prognosis. The heterogeneity of risk of dementia cannot be captured concisely with one test or a single definition or cutpoint.
了解认知正常和轻度认知障碍范围内人群痴呆风险的神经心理学基础。
我们从两项基于人群的研究中量化了无痴呆老年人进展为痴呆的风险,这两项研究分别是弗雷明汉心脏研究(FHS)和梅奥诊所衰老研究(MCSA),入组时年龄为70至89岁。基线认知状态由神经心理测试组中4个领域的表现来定义(FHS和MCSA的测试组相似但不完全相同),其划分分数对应于比正常均值低≤-0.5、-1、-1.5和-2个标准差。参与者在每个划分分数下被分为无认知障碍(参照组)、或单一或多种遗忘型或非遗忘型特征。每项研究分别由共识委员会确定接下来6年的新发痴呆情况。
尽管FHS和MCSA之间新发痴呆的风险比模式、新发痴呆率和阳性预测值在认知测试划分分数以及受影响领域数量方面相似但不完全相同。遗忘型特征的痴呆风险高于非遗忘型特征,多领域特征的痴呆风险高于单领域特征。
由神经心理学得出的划分分数和低表现领域数量所定义的认知领域亚型,在预后方面存在显著差异,这种差异在概念上符合逻辑,且在FHS和MCSA之间是一致的。对无痴呆老年人进行神经心理学特征描述可提供有关预后的有价值信息。用一项测试、单一的定义或划分点无法简洁地概括痴呆风险的异质性。