Gait performance in older adults across the cognitive spectrum: Results from the GAIT cohort.

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-29 DOI:10.1111/jgs.19162
Pauline Ali, Pauline Renaud, Manuel Montero-Odasso, Jennifer Gautier, Mickaël Dinomais, Cédric Annweiler
{"title":"Gait performance in older adults across the cognitive spectrum: Results from the GAIT cohort.","authors":"Pauline Ali, Pauline Renaud, Manuel Montero-Odasso, Jennifer Gautier, Mickaël Dinomais, Cédric Annweiler","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gait performance can provide valuable insights into cognitive functioning in older adult and may be used to screen for cognitive impairment. However, the optimal test condition and spatiotemporal parameter for accuracy have not yet been determined. This study aims to determine the gait measure with the highest accuracy identifying cognitive decline.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 711 participants were recruited, including 332 cognitively healthy individuals, 264 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 115 with dementia, with a mean age of 72 years (interquartile range 69-76), and 43% (n = 307) of women. The participants underwent gait assessment in three different conditions, including a single task and dual tasks of counting backward by ones and naming animals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Gait performance was deteriorated as cognitive impairment progressed. The gait test performed during naming animals condition was the most accurate in differentiating between cognitive groups. Specifically, the naming animals gait speed was more accurate in discriminating control participants from those with cognitive impairment (area under the curve [AUC] = 76.9% for MCI and 99.7% for people with dementia with control group as reference). The coefficient of stride length variability while naming animals was the most effective parameter in discriminating between MCI and dementia groups (AUC = 96.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The naming animals dual-task gait test can be a valuable assessment for screening cognitive impairment in older adults, regardless of their cognitive abilities. The test is useful in clinical settings for subjects with a range of cognitive profiles.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Gait performance can provide valuable insights into cognitive functioning in older adult and may be used to screen for cognitive impairment. However, the optimal test condition and spatiotemporal parameter for accuracy have not yet been determined. This study aims to determine the gait measure with the highest accuracy identifying cognitive decline.

Methods: A total of 711 participants were recruited, including 332 cognitively healthy individuals, 264 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 115 with dementia, with a mean age of 72 years (interquartile range 69-76), and 43% (n = 307) of women. The participants underwent gait assessment in three different conditions, including a single task and dual tasks of counting backward by ones and naming animals.

Results: Gait performance was deteriorated as cognitive impairment progressed. The gait test performed during naming animals condition was the most accurate in differentiating between cognitive groups. Specifically, the naming animals gait speed was more accurate in discriminating control participants from those with cognitive impairment (area under the curve [AUC] = 76.9% for MCI and 99.7% for people with dementia with control group as reference). The coefficient of stride length variability while naming animals was the most effective parameter in discriminating between MCI and dementia groups (AUC = 96.7%).

Conclusions: The naming animals dual-task gait test can be a valuable assessment for screening cognitive impairment in older adults, regardless of their cognitive abilities. The test is useful in clinical settings for subjects with a range of cognitive profiles.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同认知能力的老年人的步态表现:GAIT队列的结果。
背景:步态表现可为了解老年人的认知功能提供有价值的信息,并可用于筛查认知障碍。然而,目前尚未确定准确性的最佳测试条件和时空参数。本研究旨在确定识别认知功能下降准确性最高的步态测量方法:共招募了 711 名参与者,其中包括 332 名认知能力健康者、264 名轻度认知障碍(MCI)患者和 115 名痴呆症患者,他们的平均年龄为 72 岁(四分位间范围为 69-76),女性占 43% (n = 307)。参与者在三种不同的条件下进行了步态评估,包括单一任务和倒数 1 和命名动物的双重任务:结果:随着认知障碍程度的加深,步态表现越来越差。在命名动物的条件下进行的步态测试在区分认知障碍组别方面最为准确。具体来说,命名动物步态速度在区分对照组和认知障碍组时更为准确(以对照组为参照,MCI 患者的曲线下面积[AUC] = 76.9%,痴呆症患者的曲线下面积[AUC] = 99.7%)。命名动物时的步长变异系数是区分 MCI 组和痴呆组的最有效参数(AUC = 96.7%):命名动物双任务步态测试是筛查老年人认知障碍的一项重要评估,无论其认知能力如何。在临床环境中,该测试对不同认知能力的受试者都很有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
The art of aging gracefully. Factors associated with language concordant cognitive testing among linguistically diverse older adults. Denosumab for osteoporosis in older adults in long-term care: A randomized trial. Change in frailty among older COVID-19 survivors. Stress tests and biomarkers of resilience: Proceedings of the second state of resilience science conference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1