Literature DB >> 24174592

Can the DSM-5 framework enhance the diagnosis of MCI?

Mary Ganguli1.   

Abstract

As the field of mild cognitive impairment moves forward and various expert groups come together to update the diagnostic criteria, the framework adopted by the DSM-5 deserves consideration as a model. This framework could help disentangle cause from consequence, maximize internal consistency, and minimize redundancy and ambiguity. It could make the diagnostic criteria easier for both clinicians and researchers to implement, thus enhancing reliability of diagnosis. It could help maintain conceptual rigor by distinguishing among core diagnostic features (inclusion as well as exclusion criteria), subtypes, specifiers, associated features, and risk factors. Each level of classification, subtyping, and specification should delineate an increasingly homogeneous subgroup with an enhanced likelihood of having common underpinnings and prognosis. New knowledge could be systematically incorporated into this framework. This approach could improve the predictive value and thus the utility of the overall diagnosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24174592      PMCID: PMC3854829          DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000436944.01023.e5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurology        ISSN: 0028-3878            Impact factor:   9.910


  18 in total

1.  Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome.

Authors:  R C Petersen; G E Smith; S C Waring; R J Ivnik; E G Tangalos; E Kokmen
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  1999-03

2.  Introduction to the recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Clifford R Jack; Marilyn S Albert; David S Knopman; Guy M McKhann; Reisa A Sperling; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Creighton H Phelps
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 21.566

Review 3.  Diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease: Movement Disorder Society Task Force guidelines.

Authors:  Irene Litvan; Jennifer G Goldman; Alexander I Tröster; Ben A Schmand; Daniel Weintraub; Ronald C Petersen; Brit Mollenhauer; Charles H Adler; Karen Marder; Caroline H Williams-Gray; Dag Aarsland; Jaime Kulisevsky; Maria C Rodriguez-Oroz; David J Burn; Roger A Barker; Murat Emre
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 10.338

4.  Pre-MCI and MCI: neuropsychological, clinical, and imaging features and progression rates.

Authors:  Ranjan Duara; David A Loewenstein; Maria T Greig; Elizabeth Potter; Warren Barker; Ashok Raj; John Schinka; Amy Borenstein; Michael Schoenberg; Yougui Wu; Jessica Banko; Huntington Potter
Journal:  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.105

5.  A commentary on the proposed DSM revision regarding the classification of cognitive disorders.

Authors:  Peter V Rabins; Constantine G Lyketsos
Journal:  Am J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.105

6.  Is the apolipoprotein e genotype a biomarker for mild cognitive impairment? Findings from a nationally representative study.

Authors:  Charles J Brainerd; Valerie F Reyna; Ronald C Petersen; Glenn E Smith; Emily S Taub
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 7.  Should mild cognitive impairment be subtyped?

Authors:  Tiffany F Hughes; Beth E Snitz; Mary Ganguli
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychiatry       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.741

8.  Prevalence and severity of cognitive impairment with and without dementia in an elderly population.

Authors:  J E Graham; K Rockwood; B L Beattie; R Eastwood; S Gauthier; H Tuokko; I McDowell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-06-21       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 9.  Mild cognitive impairment: believe it or not?

Authors:  Ricardo F Allegri; Frank B Glaser; Fernando E Taragano; Herman Buschke
Journal:  Int Rev Psychiatry       Date:  2008-08

10.  The neuropathology of probable Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment.

Authors:  Julie A Schneider; Zoe Arvanitakis; Sue E Leurgans; David A Bennett
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 10.422

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  DSM-5 and Mental Disorders in Older Individuals: An Overview.

Authors:  Perminder S Sachdev; Adith Mohan; Lauren Taylor; Dilip V Jeste
Journal:  Harv Rev Psychiatry       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.732

Review 2.  Classifying neurocognitive disorders: the DSM-5 approach.

Authors:  Perminder S Sachdev; Deborah Blacker; Dan G Blazer; Mary Ganguli; Dilip V Jeste; Jane S Paulsen; Ronald C Petersen
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 42.937

3.  How well do MCI criteria predict progression to severe cognitive impairment and dementia?

Authors:  Mary Ganguli; Ching-Wen Lee; Beth E Snitz; Tiffany F Hughes; Eric M McDade; Chung-Chou H Chang
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  2014 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.703

Review 4.  Mild Neurocognitive Disorder: An Old Wine in a New Bottle.

Authors:  Gorazd B Stokin; Janina Krell-Roesch; Ronald C Petersen; Yonas E Geda
Journal:  Harv Rev Psychiatry       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.732

5.  Early diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia through basic and instrumental activities of daily living: Development of a new evaluation tool.

Authors:  Elise Cornelis; Ellen Gorus; Ingo Beyer; Ivan Bautmans; Patricia De Vriendt
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 6.  DSM Nosology Changes in Neuropsychological Diagnoses through the Years: A Look at ADHD and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder.

Authors:  Anne R Carlew; Andrea L Zartman
Journal:  Behav Sci (Basel)       Date:  2016-12-29

Review 7.  LEAP Motion Technology and Psychology: A Mini-Review on Hand Movements Sensing for Neurodevelopmental and Neurocognitive Disorders.

Authors:  Giulia Colombini; Mirko Duradoni; Federico Carpi; Laura Vagnoli; Andrea Guazzini
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-11       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Disparities in the pace of biological aging among midlife adults of the same chronological age have implications for future frailty risk and policy.

Authors:  Maxwell L Elliott; Avshalom Caspi; Renate M Houts; Antony Ambler; Jonathan M Broadbent; Robert J Hancox; HonaLee Harrington; Sean Hogan; Ross Keenan; Annchen Knodt; Joan H Leung; Tracy R Melzer; Suzanne C Purdy; Sandhya Ramrakha; Leah S Richmond-Rakerd; Antoinette Righarts; Karen Sugden; W Murray Thomson; Peter R Thorne; Benjamin S Williams; Graham Wilson; Ahmad R Hariri; Richie Poulton; Terrie E Moffitt
Journal:  Nat Aging       Date:  2021-03-15
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.