OBJECTIVES: Intraindividual cognitive variability (IICV) has been shown to differentiate between groups with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia. This study examined whether baseline IICV predicted subsequent mild to moderate cognitive impairment in a cognitively normal baseline sample. METHODS: Participants with 4 waves of cognitive assessment were drawn from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention (WRAP; n=684; 53.6(6.6) baseline age; 9.1(1.0) years follow-up; 70% female; 74.6% parental history of Alzheimer's disease). The primary outcome was Wave 4 cognitive status ("cognitively normal" vs. "impaired") determined by consensus conference; "impaired" included early MCI (n=109), clinical MCI (n=11), or dementia (n=1). Primary predictors included two IICV variables, each based on the standard deviation of a set of scores: "6 Factor IICV" and "4 Test IICV". Each IICV variable was tested in a series of logistic regression models to determine whether IICV predicted cognitive status. In exploratory analyses, distribution-based cutoffs incorporating memory, executive function, and IICV patterns were used to create and test an MCI risk variable. RESULTS: Results were similar for the IICV variables: higher IICV was associated with greater risk of subsequent impairment after covariate adjustment. After adjusting for memory and executive functioning scores contributing to IICV, IICV was not significant. The MCI risk variable also predicted risk of impairment. CONCLUSIONS: While IICV in middle-age predicts subsequent impairment, it is a weaker risk indicator than the memory and executive function scores contributing to its calculation. Exploratory analyses suggest potential to incorporate IICV patterns into risk assessment in clinical settings. (JINS, 2016, 22, 1016-1025).
OBJECTIVES: Intraindividual cognitive variability (IICV) has been shown to differentiate between groups with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia. This study examined whether baseline IICV predicted subsequent mild to moderate cognitive impairment in a cognitively normal baseline sample. METHODS:Participants with 4 waves of cognitive assessment were drawn from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention (WRAP; n=684; 53.6(6.6) baseline age; 9.1(1.0) years follow-up; 70% female; 74.6% parental history of Alzheimer's disease). The primary outcome was Wave 4 cognitive status ("cognitively normal" vs. "impaired") determined by consensus conference; "impaired" included early MCI (n=109), clinical MCI (n=11), or dementia (n=1). Primary predictors included two IICV variables, each based on the standard deviation of a set of scores: "6 Factor IICV" and "4 Test IICV". Each IICV variable was tested in a series of logistic regression models to determine whether IICV predicted cognitive status. In exploratory analyses, distribution-based cutoffs incorporating memory, executive function, and IICV patterns were used to create and test an MCI risk variable. RESULTS: Results were similar for the IICV variables: higher IICV was associated with greater risk of subsequent impairment after covariate adjustment. After adjusting for memory and executive functioning scores contributing to IICV, IICV was not significant. The MCI risk variable also predicted risk of impairment. CONCLUSIONS: While IICV in middle-age predicts subsequent impairment, it is a weaker risk indicator than the memory and executive function scores contributing to its calculation. Exploratory analyses suggest potential to incorporate IICV patterns into risk assessment in clinical settings. (JINS, 2016, 22, 1016-1025).
Authors: Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Michael C Donohue; Anthony Gamst; Rema Raman; Ronald G Thomas; Sarah Walter; John Q Trojanowski; Leslie M Shaw; Laurel A Beckett; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; Arthur W Toga; Andrew J Saykin; John C Morris; Robert C Green; Michael W Weiner Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 21.566
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: Leslie Vaughan; Iris Leng; Dale Dagenbach; Susan M Resnick; Stephen R Rapp; Janine M Jennings; Robert L Brunner; Sean L Simpson; Daniel P Beavers; Laura H Coker; Sarah A Gaussoin; Kaycee M Sink; Mark A Espeland Journal: Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res Date: 2013-12-22
Authors: Andrea M Kälin; Marlon Pflüger; Anton F Gietl; Florian Riese; Lutz Jäncke; Roger M Nitsch; Christoph Hock Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Katherine J Bangen; Alexandra J Weigand; Kelsey R Thomas; Lisa Delano-Wood; Lindsay R Clark; Joel Eppig; Madeleine L Werhane; Emily C Edmonds; Mark W Bondi Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Carey E Gleason; Derek Norton; Eric D Anderson; Michelle Wahoske; Danielle T Washington; Emre Umucu; Rebecca L Koscik; N Maritza Dowling; Sterling C Johnson; Cynthia M Carlsson; Sanjay Asthana Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Davide Bruno; Rebecca L Koscik; John L Woodard; Nunzio Pomara; Sterling C Johnson Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Rebecca L Koscik; Derek L Norton; Samantha L Allison; Erin M Jonaitis; Lindsay R Clark; Kimberly D Mueller; Bruce P Hermann; Corinne D Engelman; Carey E Gleason; Mark A Sager; Richard J Chappell; Sterling C Johnson Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Kimberly D Mueller; Rebecca L Koscik; Lianlian Du; Davide Bruno; Erin M Jonaitis; Audra Z Koscik; Bradley T Christian; Tobey J Betthauser; Nathaniel A Chin; Bruce P Hermann; Sterling C Johnson Journal: Cortex Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 4.027
Authors: Kimberly D Mueller; Rebecca L Koscik; Lindsay R Clark; Bruce P Hermann; Sterling C Johnson; Lyn S Turkstra Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 2.813