Longitudinal Patterns and Predictors of Cognitive Impairment Classification Stability.

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Cynthia McDowell, Nicholas Tamburri, Jodie R Gawryluk, Stuart W S MacDonald
{"title":"Longitudinal Patterns and Predictors of Cognitive Impairment Classification Stability.","authors":"Cynthia McDowell, Nicholas Tamburri, Jodie R Gawryluk, Stuart W S MacDonald","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Classifications such as Cognitive Impairment, No Dementia (CIND) are thought to represent the transitory, pre-clinical phase of dementia. However, increasing research demonstrates that CIND represents a nonlinear, unstable entity that does not always lead to imminent dementia. The present study utilizes a longitudinal repeated measures design to gain a thorough understanding of CIND classification stability patterns and identify predictors of future stability. The objectives were to i) explore patterns of longitudinal stability in cognitive status across multiple assessments and ii) investigate whether select baseline variables could predict 6-year CIND stability patterns.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants (N = 259) included older adults (aged 65-90 years) from Project MIND, a six-year longitudinal repeated measures design in which participants were classified as either normal cognition (NC) or CIND at each annual assessment. A latent transition analysis approach was adapted in order to identify and characterize transitions in CIND status across annual assessments. Participants were classified as either Stable NC, Stable CIND, Progressers, Reverters, or Fluctuaters. Multinomial logistic regression was employed to test whether baseline predictors were associated with cognitive status stability patterns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample demonstrated high rates of reversion and fluctuation in CIND status across annual assessments. Additionally, premorbid IQ and CIND severity (i.e., single vs. multi-domain impairment) at baseline were significantly associated with select stability outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CIND status was unstable for several years following baseline assessment and cognitive reserve may delay or protect against demonstrable cognitive impairment. Further, consideration of cognitive impairment severity at the time of initial classification may improve CIND classifications.</p>","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae107","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Classifications such as Cognitive Impairment, No Dementia (CIND) are thought to represent the transitory, pre-clinical phase of dementia. However, increasing research demonstrates that CIND represents a nonlinear, unstable entity that does not always lead to imminent dementia. The present study utilizes a longitudinal repeated measures design to gain a thorough understanding of CIND classification stability patterns and identify predictors of future stability. The objectives were to i) explore patterns of longitudinal stability in cognitive status across multiple assessments and ii) investigate whether select baseline variables could predict 6-year CIND stability patterns.

Method: Participants (N = 259) included older adults (aged 65-90 years) from Project MIND, a six-year longitudinal repeated measures design in which participants were classified as either normal cognition (NC) or CIND at each annual assessment. A latent transition analysis approach was adapted in order to identify and characterize transitions in CIND status across annual assessments. Participants were classified as either Stable NC, Stable CIND, Progressers, Reverters, or Fluctuaters. Multinomial logistic regression was employed to test whether baseline predictors were associated with cognitive status stability patterns.

Results: The sample demonstrated high rates of reversion and fluctuation in CIND status across annual assessments. Additionally, premorbid IQ and CIND severity (i.e., single vs. multi-domain impairment) at baseline were significantly associated with select stability outcomes.

Conclusions: CIND status was unstable for several years following baseline assessment and cognitive reserve may delay or protect against demonstrable cognitive impairment. Further, consideration of cognitive impairment severity at the time of initial classification may improve CIND classifications.

认知障碍分类稳定性的纵向模式和预测因素。
目的:无痴呆认知障碍(CIND)等分类被认为代表了痴呆的过渡性临床前期阶段。然而,越来越多的研究表明,CIND 是一种非线性、不稳定的实体,并不总是会导致即将发生的痴呆症。本研究采用纵向重复测量设计,以全面了解 CIND 分类的稳定性模式,并确定未来稳定性的预测因素。研究目的是:i)探索认知状态在多次评估中的纵向稳定性模式;ii)研究选定的基线变量是否能预测 6 年的 CIND 稳定模式:参与者(N = 259)包括来自 MIND 项目的老年人(65-90 岁),该项目是一项为期六年的纵向重复测量设计,在每次年度评估中,参与者被分为认知正常(NC)或 CIND 两类。为了识别和描述 CIND 状态在不同年度评估中的转变,我们采用了一种潜在转变分析方法。参与者被分为稳定的 NC、稳定的 CIND、进步者、回退者或波动者。采用多项式逻辑回归法检验基线预测因素是否与认知状态稳定模式相关:结果:样本在各年度评估中的 CIND 状态回转率和波动率都很高。此外,基线时的病前智商和 CIND 严重程度(即单领域损伤与多领域损伤)与所选的稳定性结果显著相关:结论:在基线评估后的几年中,CIND 状态并不稳定,认知储备可延缓或防止明显的认知功能损害。此外,在初始分类时考虑认知功能障碍的严重程度可能会改善 CIND 分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
358
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信