Frequency, sociodemographic, and neuropsychological features of patients with subjective cognitive decline diagnosed using different neuropsychological criteria.
Pedro Câmara Pestana, Sandra Cardoso, Manuela Guerreiro, João Maroco, Frank Jessen, Frederico Simões do Couto, Alexandre de Mendonça
{"title":"Frequency, sociodemographic, and neuropsychological features of patients with subjective cognitive decline diagnosed using different neuropsychological criteria.","authors":"Pedro Câmara Pestana, Sandra Cardoso, Manuela Guerreiro, João Maroco, Frank Jessen, Frederico Simões do Couto, Alexandre de Mendonça","doi":"10.1186/s13195-024-01634-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Subjective Cognitive Decline (SCD) is recognized as a risk stage for future cognitive impairment and dementia. The criteria for SCD include normal performance on neuropsychological testing; however, there is a lack of consensus regarding standard score cut-offs for neuropsychological tests to define cognitive impairment and to differentiate between SCD and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). This study aimed to assess the frequency of SCD diagnosis using various neuropsychological definitions of cognitive normality and to characterize the sociodemographic and neuropsychological features of SCD patients diagnosed under these criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Cognitive Complaints Cohort (CCC) participants were diagnosed following Subjective Cognitive Decline Initiative (SCD-I) criteria. Normal cognitive performance was defined by the absence of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) according to the five sets of MCI neuropsychologically based criteria defined by Jak and Bondi. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze sociodemographic, clinical, and neuropsychological data. A bootstrap methodology was employed to estimate the mean and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for specific parameters of interest, namely the SMC scale (subjective memory complaints scale), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Blessed Dementia Rating Scale - first part (BDRS first part), and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 1268 subjects included, the prevalence of SCD diagnosis exhibited substantial variation across SCD-I criteria using different neuropsychological definitions of cognitive normality (ranging from 16.4 to 81.3%). When using the most conservative criteria to define cognitive impairment (2 tests within a cognitive domain > 1.5 SD below age-adjusted means), the resulting Conservative SCD group had poorer global cognitive function (MMSE: mean 27.15, 95% CI 27.00-27.31), whereas when using the most liberal criteria to define cognitive impairment (only one test > 1 SD below age-adjusted means) the resulting Liberal SCD group had superior performance in daily-life functioning (BDRS first part: mean 0.30, 95% CI 0.23-0.38). However, subjective cognitive complaints and neuropsychiatric symptoms did not significantly differ among SCD diagnostic groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The utilization of diagnostic criteria using distinct neuropsychological definitions of cognitive normality significantly impacts the frequency of SCD diagnosis and characterizes different patient populations. Consequently, it is essential to specify the criterion when diagnosing a SCD patient and to understand the risks and benefits of using different criteria to define cognitive impairment.</p>","PeriodicalId":7516,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","volume":"16 1","pages":"261"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619704/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01634-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Subjective Cognitive Decline (SCD) is recognized as a risk stage for future cognitive impairment and dementia. The criteria for SCD include normal performance on neuropsychological testing; however, there is a lack of consensus regarding standard score cut-offs for neuropsychological tests to define cognitive impairment and to differentiate between SCD and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). This study aimed to assess the frequency of SCD diagnosis using various neuropsychological definitions of cognitive normality and to characterize the sociodemographic and neuropsychological features of SCD patients diagnosed under these criteria.
Methods: The Cognitive Complaints Cohort (CCC) participants were diagnosed following Subjective Cognitive Decline Initiative (SCD-I) criteria. Normal cognitive performance was defined by the absence of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) according to the five sets of MCI neuropsychologically based criteria defined by Jak and Bondi. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze sociodemographic, clinical, and neuropsychological data. A bootstrap methodology was employed to estimate the mean and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for specific parameters of interest, namely the SMC scale (subjective memory complaints scale), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Blessed Dementia Rating Scale - first part (BDRS first part), and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).
Results: Among the 1268 subjects included, the prevalence of SCD diagnosis exhibited substantial variation across SCD-I criteria using different neuropsychological definitions of cognitive normality (ranging from 16.4 to 81.3%). When using the most conservative criteria to define cognitive impairment (2 tests within a cognitive domain > 1.5 SD below age-adjusted means), the resulting Conservative SCD group had poorer global cognitive function (MMSE: mean 27.15, 95% CI 27.00-27.31), whereas when using the most liberal criteria to define cognitive impairment (only one test > 1 SD below age-adjusted means) the resulting Liberal SCD group had superior performance in daily-life functioning (BDRS first part: mean 0.30, 95% CI 0.23-0.38). However, subjective cognitive complaints and neuropsychiatric symptoms did not significantly differ among SCD diagnostic groups.
Conclusions: The utilization of diagnostic criteria using distinct neuropsychological definitions of cognitive normality significantly impacts the frequency of SCD diagnosis and characterizes different patient populations. Consequently, it is essential to specify the criterion when diagnosing a SCD patient and to understand the risks and benefits of using different criteria to define cognitive impairment.
背景:主观认知衰退(SCD)被认为是未来认知障碍和痴呆的危险阶段。SCD的诊断标准包括:神经心理测试表现正常;然而,对于定义认知障碍和区分SCD和轻度认知障碍(MCI)的神经心理学测试的标准分数截止点缺乏共识。本研究旨在利用各种认知正常的神经心理学定义来评估SCD的诊断频率,并描述在这些标准下诊断的SCD患者的社会人口学和神经心理学特征。方法:认知抱怨队列(CCC)参与者按照主观认知衰退主动性(SCD-I)标准进行诊断。根据Jak和Bondi定义的五套基于神经心理学的MCI标准,正常的认知表现被定义为没有轻度认知障碍(MCI)。描述性统计用于分析社会人口学、临床和神经心理学数据。采用bootstrap方法估计特定参数的平均值和95%置信区间(CI),即SMC量表(主观记忆抱怨量表),迷你精神状态检查(MMSE),祝福痴呆评定量表-第一部分(BDRS第一部分)和老年抑郁症量表(GDS)。结果:在纳入的1268名受试者中,SCD诊断的患病率在使用不同神经心理学认知正常定义的SCD- i标准中表现出实质性差异(范围从16.4%到81.3%)。当使用最保守的标准来定义认知障碍时(2次测试在认知领域内,低于年龄调整平均值1.5 SD),结果保守SCD组整体认知功能较差(MMSE:平均值27.15,95% CI 27.00-27.31),而当使用最自由的标准来定义认知障碍时(只有一次测试,低于年龄调整平均值1 SD),结果自由SCD组在日常生活功能方面表现较好(BDRS第一部分:平均值0.30,95% CI 0.23-0.38)。然而,主观认知主诉和神经精神症状在SCD诊断组之间没有显著差异。结论:使用认知正常的不同神经心理学定义的诊断标准显著影响SCD的诊断频率,并具有不同患者群体的特征。因此,在诊断SCD患者时,必须明确诊断标准,并了解使用不同标准来定义认知障碍的风险和益处。
期刊介绍:
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal that focuses on translational research into Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. It publishes open-access basic research, clinical trials, drug discovery and development studies, and epidemiologic studies. The journal also includes reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, debates, and reports. All articles published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy are included in several reputable databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science) and Scopus.