Caroline Tandetnik1, Meagan T Farrell1, Mark S Cary2, Sarah Cines1, Sheina Emrani1, Jason Karlawish2, Stephanie Cosentino1,3,4. 1. Cognitive Neuroscience Division of The Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Departments of Medicine and Medical Ethics, Alzheimer's Disease Center, Institute on Aging, and Center for Health Incentives, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. G.H. Sergievsky Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is increasingly considered promising to detect preclinical Alzheimer's disease. How SCD is ascertained is critical for determining its potential utility in identifying at-risk individuals, yet SCD measures differ along several dimensions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the extent to which reports of SCD in healthy elderly may be influenced by the characteristics of the SCD measures. We investigated variations in rates of SCD endorsement across different measures, including an open-ended question. We also examined the association of responses across measures, and the degree to which specific SCD items were associated with objective memory performance. METHODS: 99 healthy elderly completed a series of questionnaires from which 10 items examining SCD for memory and other aspects of cognition were drawn. We applied Cochran's Q tests to assess differences in rates of SCD, correlation analyses to examine association of SCD responses, and regression models to determine the association between SCD items and delayed verbal memory. RESULTS: Rates of SCD varied as a function of the assessment format, ranging from 1 to 7% for memory and 5 to 20% for concentration. SCD was lower for memory versus non-memory domains. SCD items were associated both within and across domains. The most accurate predictor of memory was memory-related SCD in comparison to others the same age. CONCLUSION: Characteristics of SCD items influence rates of endorsement. Querying SCD using an "age-anchored" question may provide the most accurate reflection of actual cognitive performance.
BACKGROUND: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is increasingly considered promising to detect preclinical Alzheimer's disease. How SCD is ascertained is critical for determining its potential utility in identifying at-risk individuals, yet SCD measures differ along several dimensions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the extent to which reports of SCD in healthy elderly may be influenced by the characteristics of the SCD measures. We investigated variations in rates of SCD endorsement across different measures, including an open-ended question. We also examined the association of responses across measures, and the degree to which specific SCD items were associated with objective memory performance. METHODS: 99 healthy elderly completed a series of questionnaires from which 10 items examining SCD for memory and other aspects of cognition were drawn. We applied Cochran's Q tests to assess differences in rates of SCD, correlation analyses to examine association of SCD responses, and regression models to determine the association between SCD items and delayed verbal memory. RESULTS: Rates of SCD varied as a function of the assessment format, ranging from 1 to 7% for memory and 5 to 20% for concentration. SCD was lower for memory versus non-memory domains. SCD items were associated both within and across domains. The most accurate predictor of memory was memory-related SCD in comparison to others the same age. CONCLUSION: Characteristics of SCD items influence rates of endorsement. Querying SCD using an "age-anchored" question may provide the most accurate reflection of actual cognitive performance.
Authors: Melissa J Slavin; Henry Brodaty; Nicole A Kochan; John D Crawford; Julian N Trollor; Brian Draper; Perminder S Sachdev Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: A J Saykin; H A Wishart; L A Rabin; R B Santulli; L A Flashman; J D West; T L McHugh; A C Mamourian Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Li Wang; Gerald van Belle; Paul K Crane; Walter A Kukull; James D Bowen; Wayne C McCormick; Eric B Larson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Yang Wang; Shannon L Risacher; John D West; Brenna C McDonald; Tamiko R Magee; Martin R Farlow; Sujuan Gao; Darren P O'Neill; Andrew J Saykin Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2013 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Frank Jessen; Steffen Wolfsgruber; Birgitt Wiese; Horst Bickel; Edelgard Mösch; Hanna Kaduszkiewicz; Michael Pentzek; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Tobias Luck; Angela Fuchs; Siegfried Weyerer; Jochen Werle; Hendrik van den Bussche; Martin Scherer; Wolfgang Maier; Michael Wagner Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Zvinka Z Zlatar; Martha C Muniz; Sarah G Espinoza; Roberto Gratianne; Tamar H Gollan; Douglas Galasko; David P Salmon Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Zvinka Z Zlatar; Martha Muniz; Douglas Galasko; David P Salmon Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Angeliki Tsapanou; Georgios S Vlachos; Stephanie Cosentino; Yian Gu; Jennifer J Manly; Adam M Brickman; Nicole Schupf; Molly E Zimmerman; Mary Yannakoulia; Mary H Kosmidis; Efthimios Dardiotis; Georgios Hadjigeorgiou; Paraskevi Sakka; Yaakov Stern; Nikolaos Scarmeas; Richard Mayeux Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Andrea Tales; Frank Jessen; Christopher Butler; Gordon Wilcock; Judith Phillips; Tony Bayer Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Serena Sabatini; Obioha C Ukoumunne; Clive Ballard; Allyson Brothers; Roman Kaspar; Rachel Collins; Sarang Kim; Anne Corbett; Dag Aarsland; Adam Hampshire; Helen Brooker; Linda Clare Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 3.921