BACKGROUND/AIMS: Subjective memory complaint (SMC) in normal individuals may predict future cognitive decline. The goal of this study was to examine whether the probability of decline increases with growing intensity of complaint. METHODS: Normal subjects over the age of 50 years were included in a longitudinal retrospective study (mean follow-up time = 8 years). All subjects (n = 230) underwent cognitive and medical examination at baseline. The presence of SMC was determined based on Global Deterioration Scale staging. A subgroup of 83 participants also received baseline assessment for the intensity of SMC. Logistic regression was used to predict outcome from baseline variables. Three outcome groups were established at the final visit: nondeclining, declining and diagnostically unstable (i.e. the diagnosis changed over time: from normal to mild cognitive impairment, then back to normal). RESULTS: The presence of SMC was a predictor of future decline but also increased the likelihood of the unstable diagnosis. Increasing intensity of SMC did not further raise the risk for decline. High intensity of complaints and more pronounced affective symptoms predicted the unstable clinical diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of SMC contributes to the risk of future decline, however, the increasing intensity of the perceived impairment does not further enhance the risk. 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Subjective memory complaint (SMC) in normal individuals may predict future cognitive decline. The goal of this study was to examine whether the probability of decline increases with growing intensity of complaint. METHODS: Normal subjects over the age of 50 years were included in a longitudinal retrospective study (mean follow-up time = 8 years). All subjects (n = 230) underwent cognitive and medical examination at baseline. The presence of SMC was determined based on Global Deterioration Scale staging. A subgroup of 83 participants also received baseline assessment for the intensity of SMC. Logistic regression was used to predict outcome from baseline variables. Three outcome groups were established at the final visit: nondeclining, declining and diagnostically unstable (i.e. the diagnosis changed over time: from normal to mild cognitive impairment, then back to normal). RESULTS: The presence of SMC was a predictor of future decline but also increased the likelihood of the unstable diagnosis. Increasing intensity of SMC did not further raise the risk for decline. High intensity of complaints and more pronounced affective symptoms predicted the unstable clinical diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of SMC contributes to the risk of future decline, however, the increasing intensity of the perceived impairment does not further enhance the risk. 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
Authors: Susan De Santi; Elizabeth Pirraglia; William Barr; James Babb; Schantel Williams; Kimberley Rogers; Lidia Glodzik; Miroslaw Brys; Lisa Mosconi; Barry Reisberg; Steven Ferris; Mony J de Leon Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Shannon L Risacher; Sungeun Kim; Kwangsik Nho; Tatiana Foroud; Li Shen; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Laurel A Beckett; Paul S Aisen; Robert A Koeppe; William J Jagust; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski; Michael W Weiner; Andrew J Saykin Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Anne Hafkemeijer; Irmhild Altmann-Schneider; Anna M Oleksik; Lotte van de Wiel; Huub A M Middelkoop; Mark A van Buchem; Jeroen van der Grond; Serge A R B Rombouts Journal: Brain Connect Date: 2013-06-21
Authors: Zvinka Z Zlatar; Raeanne C Moore; Barton W Palmer; Wesley K Thompson; Dilip V Jeste Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Frank Jessen; Rebecca E Amariglio; Martin van Boxtel; Monique Breteler; Mathieu Ceccaldi; Gaël Chételat; Bruno Dubois; Carole Dufouil; Kathryn A Ellis; Wiesje M van der Flier; Lidia Glodzik; Argonde C van Harten; Mony J de Leon; Pauline McHugh; Michelle M Mielke; Jose Luis Molinuevo; Lisa Mosconi; Ricardo S Osorio; Audrey Perrotin; Ronald C Petersen; Laura A Rabin; Lorena Rami; Barry Reisberg; Dorene M Rentz; Perminder S Sachdev; Vincent de la Sayette; Andrew J Saykin; Philip Scheltens; Melanie B Shulman; Melissa J Slavin; Reisa A Sperling; Robert Stewart; Olga Uspenskaya; Bruno Vellas; Pieter Jelle Visser; Michael Wagner Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Heather D Lucas; Jim M Monti; Edward McAuley; Patrick D Watson; Arthur F Kramer; Neal J Cohen Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Susanne I Steinberg; Selamawit Negash; Mary D Sammel; Hillary Bogner; Brian T Harel; Melissa G Livney; Hannah McCoubrey; David A Wolk; Mitchel A Kling; Steven E Arnold Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.035