Jacob W Vogel1, Monika Varga Doležalová2, Renaud La Joie2, Shawn M Marks2, Henry D Schwimmer2, Susan M Landau2, William J Jagust2. 1. From Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute (J.W.V., M.V.D., R.L.J., S.M.M., H.D.S., S.M.L., W.J.J.), University of California, Berkeley; and Memory and Aging Center (R.L.J.), University of California, San Francisco. jacobwvogel@gmail.com. 2. From Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute (J.W.V., M.V.D., R.L.J., S.M.M., H.D.S., S.M.L., W.J.J.), University of California, Berkeley; and Memory and Aging Center (R.L.J.), University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess in a longitudinal study whether subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and brain β-amyloid (Aβ) contribute unique information to cognitive decline. METHODS: One hundred thirty-six healthy elderly from the Berkeley Aging Cohort Study were followed up for a mean of 4 years. SCD and affective measures were generated from the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) with factor analysis on data from a larger set of 347 healthy, nondepressed (GDS <11) elderly individuals. Cognition was summarized with previously validated factor scores. Pittsburgh compound B (PiB)-PET scans were acquired to determine the presence (PiB+) or absence (PiB-) of Aβ pathology. Mixed models were used to assess the independent and interactive effects of SCD, affective features, PiB status, and time on cognition, with adjustment for demographic variables. RESULTS: SCD score demonstrated good construct validity compared to an existing measure of subjective memory and was partially explained by several lower-order measurements. Mixed models revealed that SCD interacted with PiB status to predict change in episodic memory and global cognition over time, with adjustment for affective features. PiB+ individuals with more severe SCD demonstrated the steepest cognitive decline. Worse SCD predicted faster decline in working memory independently of PiB status. No such effects were seen for affective scores when adjusted for SCD. CONCLUSIONS: PiB+ individuals with SCD are at greatest risk of cognitive decline. Evidence for amyloid alone is not sufficient to indicate risk of rapid cognitive decline in healthy elderly. Effects of GDS on cognitive decline in nondepressed cohorts may be driven by SCD rather than subsyndromal depression.
OBJECTIVE: To assess in a longitudinal study whether subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and brain β-amyloid (Aβ) contribute unique information to cognitive decline. METHODS: One hundred thirty-six healthy elderly from the Berkeley Aging Cohort Study were followed up for a mean of 4 years. SCD and affective measures were generated from the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) with factor analysis on data from a larger set of 347 healthy, nondepressed (GDS <11) elderly individuals. Cognition was summarized with previously validated factor scores. Pittsburgh compound B (PiB)-PET scans were acquired to determine the presence (PiB+) or absence (PiB-) of Aβ pathology. Mixed models were used to assess the independent and interactive effects of SCD, affective features, PiB status, and time on cognition, with adjustment for demographic variables. RESULTS:SCD score demonstrated good construct validity compared to an existing measure of subjective memory and was partially explained by several lower-order measurements. Mixed models revealed that SCD interacted with PiB status to predict change in episodic memory and global cognition over time, with adjustment for affective features. PiB+ individuals with more severe SCD demonstrated the steepest cognitive decline. Worse SCD predicted faster decline in working memory independently of PiB status. No such effects were seen for affective scores when adjusted for SCD. CONCLUSIONS: PiB+ individuals with SCD are at greatest risk of cognitive decline. Evidence for amyloid alone is not sufficient to indicate risk of rapid cognitive decline in healthy elderly. Effects of GDS on cognitive decline in nondepressed cohorts may be driven by SCD rather than subsyndromal depression.
Authors: Frank Jessen; Birgitt Wiese; Cadja Bachmann; Sandra Eifflaender-Gorfer; Franziska Haller; Heike Kölsch; Tobias Luck; Edelgard Mösch; Hendrik van den Bussche; Michael Wagner; Anja Wollny; Thomas Zimmermann; Michael Pentzek; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Heinz-Peter Romberg; Siegfried Weyerer; Hanna Kaduszkiewicz; Wolfgang Maier; Horst Bickel Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-04
Authors: Victor L Villemagne; Samantha Burnham; Pierrick Bourgeat; Belinda Brown; Kathryn A Ellis; Olivier Salvado; Cassandra Szoeke; S Lance Macaulay; Ralph Martins; Paul Maruff; David Ames; Christopher C Rowe; Colin L Masters Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Margaret Gatz; Chandra A Reynolds; Laura Fratiglioni; Boo Johansson; James A Mortimer; Stig Berg; Amy Fiske; Nancy L Pedersen Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2006-02
Authors: Sepideh Shokouhi; Alexander C Conley; Suzanne L Baker; Kimberly Albert; Hakmook Kang; Harry E Gwirtsman; Paul A Newhouse Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Vaughn E Bryant; Robert A Fieo; Andrew J Fiore; Veronica L Richards; Eric C Porges; Renessa Williams; Huiyin Lu; Zhi Zhou; Robert L Cook Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2021-09-22
Authors: Young Min Choe; Guk-Hee Suh; Boung Chul Lee; Ihn-Geun Choi; Jun Ho Lee; Hyun Soo Kim; Jaeuk Hwang; Jee Wook Kim Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 5.152
Authors: Frank Jessen; Rebecca E Amariglio; Rachel F Buckley; Wiesje M van der Flier; Ying Han; José Luis Molinuevo; Laura Rabin; Dorene M Rentz; Octavio Rodriguez-Gomez; Andrew J Saykin; Sietske A M Sikkes; Colette M Smart; Steffen Wolfsgruber; Michael Wagner Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Bruno Dubois; Nicolas Villain; Giovanni B Frisoni; Gil D Rabinovici; Marwan Sabbagh; Stefano Cappa; Alexandre Bejanin; Stéphanie Bombois; Stéphane Epelbaum; Marc Teichmann; Marie-Odile Habert; Agneta Nordberg; Kaj Blennow; Douglas Galasko; Yaakov Stern; Christopher C Rowe; Stephen Salloway; Lon S Schneider; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard H Feldman Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 59.935