Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
A typology of sub-clinical senescent cognitive disorder
Ritchie K, Leibovici D, Ledésert B, Touchon J.. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 1996-04-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Cognitive impairment without dementia is commonly observed in ageing populations. The present study aims to describe types of impairment and evolution over a one-year period. Method Three hundred and ninety-seven normal French elderly persons demonstrating recent, observable change in cognitive performance were examined annually using a computerised cognitive examination. Results Five subtypes were differentiated by cluster analysis. Two of the groups were predicted by logistic regression to be at high risk of senile dementia. Of 16 incident cases of senile dementia diagnosed in the following year, 13 were found to have derived from these two groups. The typology was also found to be useful in the description of age-associated memory impairment. Conclusions Subclinical cognitive impairment was found to not constitute a unitary phenomenon and heterogeneous subgroups could be differentiated. The concept of 'normality' in elderly cohorts is reconsidered in the light of these findings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ritchie, K., Leibovici, D., Ledésert, B., & Touchon, J. (1996). A typology of sub-clinical senescent cognitive disorder. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.168.4.470
Vancouver
Ritchie K, Leibovici D, Ledésert B, Touchon J. A typology of sub-clinical senescent cognitive disorder. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 1996. doi:10.1192/bjp.168.4.470. PMID: 8730944.
BibTeX
@article{ritchie1996-8730944,
author = {Ritchie, K. and Leibovici, D. and Ledésert, B. and Touchon, J.},
title = {{A typology of sub-clinical senescent cognitive disorder}},
journal = {The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science},
year = {1996},
doi = {10.1192/bjp.168.4.470},
pmid = {8730944},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.168.4.470}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Five subtypes were differentiated by cluster analysis.
- The concept of 'normality' in elderly cohorts is reconsidered in the light of these findings.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1996 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 8730944) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.