ObjectiveWe developed a Korean version of Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) optimized for screening dementia (MMSE-DS) and its' short form (SMMSE-DS).MethodsWe constructed the MMSE-DS using the items of the two current Korean versions of MMSE and then construct the SMMSE-DS consisted of 13 items from the MMSE-DS based on the diagnostic accuracy of individual items for dementia. We investigated reliability and validity of MMSE-DS and SMMSE-DS on 1,555 subjects (1,222 nondemented controls, 333 dementia patients). We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the SMMSE-DS with that of the three full Korean versions of MMSE, and examined its' age- and education-specific optimal cutoff scores for dementia.ResultsThe internal consistency obtained by Cronbach's coefficient alpha was 0.826. The inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability were 0.968 (p<0.001) and 0.825 (p<0.001), respectively. It showed significant correlation with the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (r=-0.698, p<0.05) and the three full Korean versions of MMSE (r=0.839-0.938, p<0.001). The area under the receiver operator curve for dementia of the SMMSE-DS was larger than those of the three full Korean versions of MMSE (p<0.001). Age, education and gender explained 19.4% of the total variance of SMMSE-DS scores. The optimal cutoff scores for dementia of the SMMSE-DS were estimated differently by age and educational attainment of the subjects.ConclusionThe SMMSE-DS was found to be accurate, brief and portable instrument for screening dementia in Korean elders, and may be particularly useful for screening dementia in elderly populations with wide variation in educational levels.

The core biomarker pattern is in line with the current pathophysiologic model of AD. Fully normal and fully abnormal pattern is associated with exceptional and universal development of dementia. Cases not in line might be due to atypical neurobiology or inaccurate thresholds for biomarker (ab)normality.

No abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate predictors of progressive cognitive deterioration in patients with suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathology (SNAP) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods:We measured markers of amyloid pathology (CSF b-amyloid 42) and neurodegeneration (hippocampal volume on MRI and cortical metabolism on [18 F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET) in 201 patients with MCI clinically followed for up to 6 years to detect progressive cognitive deterioration. We categorized patients with MCI as A1/A2 and N1/N2 based on presence/absence of amyloid pathology and neurodegeneration. SNAPs were A2N1 cases.Results: The proportion of progressors was 11% (8/41), 34% (14/41), 56% (19/34), and 71%(60/85) in A2N2, A1N2, SNAP, and A1N1, respectively; the proportion of APOE e4 carriers was 29%, 70%, 31%, and 71%, respectively, with the SNAP group featuring a significantly different proportion than both A1N2 and A1N1 groups (p # 0.005). Hypometabolism in SNAP patients was comparable to A1N1 patients (p 5 0.154), while hippocampal atrophy was more severe in SNAP patients (p 5 0.002). Compared with A2N2, SNAP and A1N1 patients had significant risk of progressive cognitive deterioration (hazard ratio 5 2.7 and 3.8, p 5 0.016 and p , 0.001), while A1N2 patients did not (hazard ratio 5 1.13, p 5 0.771). In A1N2 and A1N1 groups, none of the biomarkers predicted time to progression. In the SNAP group, lower time to progression was correlated with greater hypometabolism (r 5 0.42, p 5 0.073). The amyloid cascade hypothesis 1,2 has so far dominated the Alzheimer disease (AD) field. Jack et al. Conclusions:3,4 proposed a dynamic model that relates disease stage to the best established biomarkers of AD pathology. Based on this, a National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association task force developed recommendations for the diagnosis of preclinical AD based on biomarkers of amyloidosis and neuronal injury.5 Soon afterward, these criteria were operationalized and a

Aim: We aimed toevaluatethe psychometric properties of the Subjective Memory Complaints Questionnaire (SMCQ). Methods: The reliability of the SMCQ was evaluated by testing its internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Pearson correlation analyses were performed to assess the concurrent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the construct validity. Diagnostic ability for dementia was tested with receiver operator characteristic curve analyses. Results: Cronbach’s α coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficients of the SMCQ were 0.864 and 0.828 (p < 0.001), respectively. The SMCQ scores were significantly correlated with the scores on Camdex Memory Complaint Questionnaire, Seoul Informant Report Questionnaire for Dementia and cognitive tests from the CERAD (Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease) neuropsychological test battery (p < 0.01). The results of confirmatory factor analyses confirmed that the SMCQ consisted of subjective memory complaints (SMC) for general memory and for everyday memory. The SMCQ score discriminated well between nondemented elderly without dementia and those with dementia (p < 0.01). The area under the curve value of the SMCQ was 0.84, indicating that it had high diagnostic ability. Conclusion: The SMCQ was found to be a brief, reliable and valid questionnaire for evaluating SMC. It might be useful for evaluating the cognition of elderly subjects when reliable informants are not available.