4.2 Article

Comparison of Neuropsychological and FDG-PET Findings between Early-versus Late-Onset Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study

期刊

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 213-223

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000278422

关键词

Mild cognitive impairment; Alzheimer's disease; Neuropsychological assessment; PET

资金

  1. Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea [A050079]
  2. Samsung Medical Center Clinical Research Development Program [CRL-108011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Our purpose was to investigate differences in neuropsychological characteristics and glucose metabolism between early-onset mild cognitive impairment (EOMCI) and late onset MCI (LOMCI) patients and to determine if the baseline differences are predictive of conversion to dementia. Methods: We enrolled 28 patients with MCI (12 EOMCI, 16 LOMCI) and 2 age-matched control groups. At the end of a 5-year follow-up, we compared the baseline neuropsychological and PET data between converters and nonconverters. Results: The EOMCI patients obtained significantly higher scores in verbal recall and word fluency tests than the LOMCI patients. The EOMCI group, compared to the young controls, demonstrated hypometabolism in brain regions vulnerable in mild Alzheimer's disease. Converters were significantly more impaired in the delayed verbal recall test than nonconverters (p = 0.028) and tended to be more impaired in the semantic word fluency test ( p = 0.084). The baseline PET scan of the converters demonstrated severer hypometabolism in frontal areas than that of the nonconverters both in the EOMCI and LOMCI groups. Conclusion: Our study suggests that EOMCI patients may differ from LOMCI in the patterns of cognitive deficits and glucose hypometabolism. In addition, baseline neuropsychological and FDG-PET findings suggest that MCI patients with poor memory or frontal dysfunction are at greater risk of conversion to dementia. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据