Home › Research › Mild cognitive impairment
Mild Cognitive Impairment as a Clinical Entity and Treatment Target
Ronald Carl Petersen, John C. Morris. Archives of Neurology, 2005-07-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
M ILD COGNITIVE i m p a i r m e n t (MCI) has been actively investigated for the past decade. , 2 The term was coined in the late 1980s by the New York University group to identify individuals who were not cognitively normal for age and yet did not have overt dementia, and their outcomes were described in an article examining predictors of dementia by Flicker et al in the early 1990s. Flicker et al characterized MCI as equivalent to a Global Deterioration Scale rating of 3 and found that a diagnostic approach combining a careful, structured interview and the appropriate neuropsychological tests can discriminate those individuals with MCI likely to experience cognitive deterioration from those with a benign prognosis. Recently MCI has been given more specific criteria involving the features outlined in Figure 1 of the comments by Gauthier and Touchon abstracted from Petersen et al. In conjunction with increased attention to the early stages of development of Alzheimer disease (AD), these criteria served to catalyze intense interest in MCI as a possible prodromal stage of AD. Several studies on longitudinal populations were conducted, some retrofitting criteria to longitudinal studies of aging, and several others are either underway or completed and have demonstrated a progression from MCI to AD at an elevated rate over the base rate in the population. Most of these studies examined the amnestic subtype of MCI, in which memory impairment is a key feature. However, other studies, often encompassing a broader definition of MCI, have demonstrated a reversion to normal in some subjects, implying a lack of stability for the construct over time. This has led to a closer inspection of the underlying premises of MCI and a refinement of criteria to recognize that MCI is a heterogeneous condition. Several factors have emerged as contributing to the variability in the outcomes of several of these studies. Among these are the following factors: (1) criteria for MCI, (2) implementation of the criteria, (3) source of subjects, and (4) reference standards for normal performance. Each of these points deserves discussion as it pertains to the comments raised by Gauthier and Touchon.
Key findings
- Several studies on longitudinal populations were conducted, some retrofitting criteria to longitudinal studies of aging, and several others are either underway or completed and have demonstrated a progression from MCI to AD at an elevated rate over the base rate in the population.
- However, other studies, often encompassing a broader definition of MCI, have demonstrated a reversion to normal in some subjects, implying a lack of stability for the construct over time.
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Archives of Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2005 — 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 16009779) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Petersen, R. C., & Morris, J. C. (2005). Mild Cognitive Impairment as a Clinical Entity and Treatment Target. Archives of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.62.7.1160
Vancouver
Petersen RC, Morris JC. Mild Cognitive Impairment as a Clinical Entity and Treatment Target. Archives of Neurology. 2005. doi:10.1001/archneur.62.7.1160. PMID: 16009779.
BibTeX
@article{petersen2005-16009779,
author = {Petersen, Ronald Carl and Morris, John C.},
title = {{Mild Cognitive Impairment as a Clinical Entity and Treatment Target}},
journal = {Archives of Neurology},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1001/archneur.62.7.1160},
pmid = {16009779},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.62.7.1160}
}
Related studies in Mild cognitive impairment
Also in Mild cognitive impairment
76 studies in the library are filed under Mild cognitive impairment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Mild cognitive impairment hub.