Clara Li1, Judith Neugroschl1, Xiaodong Luo2, Carolyn Zhu2, Paul Aisen3, Steven Ferris4, Mary Sano1,2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 2. James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA. 3. Keck School of Medicine of USC, San Diego California Alzheimer's Disease Center, Center for Cognitive Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Alzheimer's Disease Center, Center for Cognitive Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subjective cognitive complaint is a sensitive marker of decline. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) examine reliability of subjective cognitive complaint using the Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI), and (2) assess the utility of the CFI to detect cognitive decline in non-demented elders. METHODS: Data from a four-year longitudinal study at multiple Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) sites were extracted (n = 644). Of these, 497 had Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global scores of 0 and 147 had a CDR of 0.5. Mean age and education were 79.5±3.6 and 15.0±3.1 years, respectively. All participants and their study partners completed the subject and study partner CFI yearly. Modified Mini-Mental State Exam (mMMSE) and Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) were administered. Scores below the predetermined cut-off scores on either measure at annual visit were triggers for a full diagnostic evaluation. Cognitive decline was defined by the absence/presence of the trigger. RESULTS: Three-month test retest reliability showed that inter-class coefficients for subject and study partner CFI were 0.76 and 0.78, respectively. Generalized estimating equation method revealed that both subject and study partner CFI change scores and scores from previous year were sensitive to cognitive decline in the CDR 0 group (p < 0.05). In the CDR 0.5 group, only the study partner CFI change score predicted cognitive decline (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cognitive decline was predicted differentially by CDR level with subject CFI scores providing the best prediction for those with CDR 0 while study partner CFI predicted best for those at CDR 0.5.
BACKGROUND: Subjective cognitive complaint is a sensitive marker of decline. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) examine reliability of subjective cognitive complaint using the Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI), and (2) assess the utility of the CFI to detect cognitive decline in non-demented elders. METHODS: Data from a four-year longitudinal study at multiple Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) sites were extracted (n = 644). Of these, 497 had Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global scores of 0 and 147 had a CDR of 0.5. Mean age and education were 79.5±3.6 and 15.0±3.1 years, respectively. All participants and their study partners completed the subject and study partner CFI yearly. Modified Mini-Mental State Exam (mMMSE) and Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) were administered. Scores below the predetermined cut-off scores on either measure at annual visit were triggers for a full diagnostic evaluation. Cognitive decline was defined by the absence/presence of the trigger. RESULTS: Three-month test retest reliability showed that inter-class coefficients for subject and study partner CFI were 0.76 and 0.78, respectively. Generalized estimating equation method revealed that both subject and study partner CFI change scores and scores from previous year were sensitive to cognitive decline in the CDR 0 group (p < 0.05). In the CDR 0.5 group, only the study partner CFI change score predicted cognitive decline (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cognitive decline was predicted differentially by CDR level with subject CFI scores providing the best prediction for those with CDR 0 while study partner CFI predicted best for those at CDR 0.5.
Authors: Douglas Galasko; David A Bennett; Mary Sano; Daniel Marson; Jeff Kaye; Steven D Edland Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2006 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
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: Steven H Ferris; Paul S Aisen; Jeffrey Cummings; Douglas Galasko; David P Salmon; Lon Schneider; Mary Sano; Peter J Whitehouse; Steven Edland; Leon J Thal Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2006 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Lon S Schneider; Christopher M Clark; Rachelle Doody; Steven H Ferris; John C Morris; Rema Raman; Barry Reisberg; Frederick A Schmitt Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2006 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: David P Salmon; Jeffrey L Cummings; Shelia Jin; Mary Sano; Reisa A Sperling; Edward Zamrini; Ronald C Petersen; Steven D Edland; Leon J Thal; Steven H Ferris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2006 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Jeffrey L Cummings; Rema Raman; Karin Ernstrom; David Salmon; Steven H Ferris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2006 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Richard B Lipton; Mindy J Katz; Gail Kuslansky; Martin J Sliwinski; Walter F Stewart; Joe Verghese; Howard A Crystal; Herman Buschke Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.562
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: Sally A Shumaker; Claudine Legault; Stephen R Rapp; Leon Thal; Robert B Wallace; Judith K Ockene; Susan L Hendrix; Beverly N Jones; Annlouise R Assaf; Rebecca D Jackson; Jane Morley Kotchen; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Jean Wactawski-Wende Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Amanda Szabo-Reed; Jonathan Clutton; Sydney White; Angela Van Sciver; Dreu White; Jill Morris; Laura Martin; Rebecca Lepping; Ashley Shaw; Jaime Perales Puchalt; Robert Montgomery; Jonathan Mahnken; Richard Washburn; Jeffrey Burns; Eric D Vidoni Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 2.261
Authors: Zhenjiang Li; Grace M Christensen; James J Lah; Michele Marcus; Armistead G Russell; Stefanie Ebelt; Lance A Waller; Anke Hüls Journal: Environ Res Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 8.431
Authors: Aliza P Wingo; Thomas S Wingo; Wen Fan; Sharon Bergquist; Alvaro Alonso; Michele Marcus; Allan I Levey; James J Lah Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-11-30 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Miranda G Chappel-Farley; Bryce A Mander; Ariel B Neikrug; Annamarie Stehli; Bin Nan; Joshua D Grill; Michael A Yassa; Ruth M Benca Journal: Sleep Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 6.313
Authors: S Guyonnet; Y Rolland; C Takeda; P-J Ousset; I Ader; N Davezac; C Dray; N Fazilleau; P Gourdy; R Liblau; A Parini; P Payoux; L Pénicaud; C Rampon; P Valet; N Vergnolle; S Andrieu; P de Souto Barreto; L Casteilla; B Vellas Journal: J Frailty Aging Date: 2021
Authors: Kasper Jørgensen; Thomas R Nielsen; Ann Nielsen; Frans B Waldorff; Gunhild Waldemar Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-26 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Rachel L Nosheny; Monica R Camacho; Philip S Insel; Derek Flenniken; Juliet Fockler; Diana Truran; Shannon Finley; Aaron Ulbricht; Paul Maruff; Kristine Yaffe; R Scott Mackin; Michael W Weiner Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2018-10-15
Authors: R E Amariglio; S A M Sikkes; G A Marshall; R F Buckley; J R Gatchel; K A Johnson; D M Rentz; M C Donohue; R Raman; C-K Sun; R Yaari; K C Holdridge; J R Sims; J D Grill; P S Aisen; R A Sperling Journal: J Prev Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021