Comparing different approaches for operationalizing subjective cognitive decline: impact on syndromic and biomarker profiles
Abstract Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) has been proposed as a risk factor for future cognitive decline and dementia. Given the heterogeneity of SCD and the lack of consensus about how to classify this condition, different operationalization approaches still need to be compared. In this study, w...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/267df1573ca045c4bcc2c8fa30d82604 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) has been proposed as a risk factor for future cognitive decline and dementia. Given the heterogeneity of SCD and the lack of consensus about how to classify this condition, different operationalization approaches still need to be compared. In this study, we used the same sample of individuals to compare different SCD operationalization approaches. We included 399 cognitively healthy individuals from a community-based cohort. SCD was assessed through nine questions about memory and non-memory subjective complaints. We applied four approaches to operationalize SCD: two hypothesis-driven approaches and two data-driven approaches. We characterized the resulting groups from each operationalization approach using multivariate methods on comprehensive demographic, clinical, cognitive, and neuroimaging data. We identified two main phenotypes: an amnestic phenotype characterized by an Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) signature pattern of brain atrophy; and an anomic phenotype, which was mainly related to cerebrovascular pathology. Furthermore, language complaints other than naming helped to identify a subgroup with subclinical cognitive impairment and difficulties in activities of daily living. This subgroup also showed an AD signature pattern of atrophy. The identification of SCD phenotypes, characterized by different syndromic and biomarker profiles, varies depending on the operationalization approach used. In this study we discuss how these findings may be used in clinical practice and research. |
|---|