Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:47:20.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Progress in Clinical Neurosciences: Cognitive Markers of Progression in Alzheimer's Disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Pearl Behl ,
Taresa L. Stefurak  and
Sandra E. Black
Pearl Behl
Affiliation:
Linda Campbell Cognitive Neurology Research Unit, Sunnybrook and Women's Research Institute, and the Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Taresa L. Stefurak
Affiliation:
Division of Neurology, Toronto East General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
Sandra E. Black
Affiliation:
Linda Campbell Cognitive Neurology Research Unit, Sunnybrook and Women's Research Institute, and the Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, and the Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The objective of this review is to summarize the literature on Alzheimer's disease progression utilizing cognitive batteries to track change over time. Studies published in English and obtained through PubMed searches (1983-2004) were included i) if they had a longitudinal design and followed probable Alzheimer's patients diagnosed by National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III/IV criteria, and ii) if the techniques used for serial assessment were well-established in terms of validity and reliability. Longitudinal studies examining Alzheimer's disease progression report highly variable annual rates of change in decline rate. It remains unclear if this reflects disease subgroups or stage-related rate of decline. In conclusion a combination of stage-appropriate cognitive tests such as the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale and the Severe Impairment Battery, along with appropriate statistical methods to account for individual variability in decline rates, can capture the progression of Alzheimer disease and may be useful in further investigation.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:

Cette revue constitue un sommaire de la littérature sur l’utilisation de batteries de tests cognitifs pour suivre la progression de la maladie d’Alzheimer (MA). Les études publiées en anglais ont été identifiées par une recherche PubMed (1983-2004). Elles étaient incluses s’il s’agissait d’études longitudinales sur des patients atteints de MA probable, diagnostiquée selon les critères du National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association ou du Manuel diagnostique et statistique des maladies mentales III/IV; et si la validité et la fiabilité des techniques utilisées pour les évaluations successives étaient bien établies. Les études longitudinales sur la progression de la MA rapportent des taux annuels de progression très variables. Il n’est pas clair si cette observation est attribuable à l’évolution de la maladie chez des sous-groupes de patients ou à des taux de déclin en relation avec les stades de la maladie. Conclusions: Nous suggérons qu’une combinaison de tests cognitifs appropriés à différents stades de la maladie tels le Mattis Dementia Rating Scale et le Severe Impairment Battery, ainsi que des méthodes statistiques appropriées tenant compte de la variabilité individuelle du taux de déclin puissant évaluer la progression de la MA et pourraient être utiles dans les études futures.

Type
Review Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , May 2005 , pp. 140 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2005

References

1. McKhann, G, Drachman, D, Folstein, M, et al. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology 1984;34:939–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IIIR). 3rd revised ed. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association 1987.Google Scholar
3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III). Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association 1980.Google Scholar
4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of mental disorders (DSM-IV). 4th ed. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association 1994.Google Scholar
5. Jack, CRJ, Slomkowski, M, Gracon, S, et al. MRI as a biomarker ofdisease progression in a therapeutic trial of milameline for AD. Neurology 2003;60:253–260.Google Scholar
6. Jack, CRJ, Shiung, MM, Gunter, JL, et al. Comparison of different MRI brain atrophy rate measures with clinical disease progression in AD. Neurology 2004;62:591–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Giacometti, AR, Davis, PC, Alazraki, NP, Malko, JA. Anatomic andphysiologic imaging of Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Geriatr Med 1994;10:277–298.Google Scholar
8. Hampel, H, Mitchell, A, Blennow, K, et al. Core biological markercandidates of Alzheimer’s disease – perspectives for diagnosis, prediction of outcome and reflection of biological activity. J Neural Transm 2004;111:247–272.Google Scholar
9. Gelb, DJ. Measurement of progression in Alzheimer’s disease: aclinician’s perspective. Stat Med 2000;19:1393–1400.Google Scholar
10. Gauthier, S. Update on diagnostic methods, natural history andoutcome variables in Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1998;9 (Suppl 3):2–7.Google Scholar
11. Gauthier, S, Panisset, M. Current diagnostic methods and outcomevariables for clinical investigation of Alzheimer’s disease. J Neural Transm (Suppl) 1998;53:251–254.Google Scholar
12. Galasko, D, Corey-Bloom, J, Thal, LJ. Monitoring progression in Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39:932–941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Galasko, DR, Gould, RL, Abramson, IS, Salmon, DP. Measuringcognitive change in a cohort of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Stat Med 2000;19:1421–1432.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Anonymous. The Canadian Study of Health and Aging: risk factorsfor Alzheimer’s disease in Canada. Neurology 1994;44:2073–2080.Google Scholar
15. Lanctot, KL, Herrmann, N, Yau, KK, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis. Can Med Assoc J 2003;169:557–564.Google Scholar
16. Rockwood, K, Wallack, M, Tallis, R. The treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: success short of cure. Lancet Neurol 2003;2:630–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Blass, JP. Metabolic alterations common to neural and non-neuralcells in Alzheimer’s disease. Hippocampus 1993;3 Spec No:45-53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Braak, H, Braak, E, Yilmazer, D, et al. Pattern of brain destruction in Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases. J Neural Transm 1996;103:455–490.Google Scholar
19. Braak, E, Griffing, K, Arai, K, et al. Neuropathology of Alzheimer’s disease: what is new since A. Alzheimer? Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 1999;249 (Suppl 3):14–22.Google ScholarPubMed
20. Braak, H, Braak, E. Frequency of stages of Alzheimer-relatedlesions in different age categories. Neurobiol Aging 1997;18:351–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Ohm, TG, Muller, H, Braak, H, Bohl, J. Close-meshed prevalencerates of different stages as a tool to uncover the rate of Alzheimer’s disease-related neurofibrillary changes. Neuroscience 1995;64:209–217.Google Scholar
22. Price, JL, Davis, PB, Morris, JC, White, DL. The distribution oftangles, plaques and related immunohistochemical markers in healthy aging and Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 1991;12:295–312.Google ScholarPubMed
23. Bancher, C, Braak, H, Fischer, P, Jellinger, KA. Neuropathologicalstaging of Alzheimer lesions and intellectual status in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease patients. Neurosci Lett 1993;162:179–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Sasaki, H, Arai, H. [Neurotransmitter abnormalities in the dementiaof Alzheimer type]. Rinsho Shinkeigaku 1986;26:1290–1293.Google Scholar
25. Sasaki, H, Muramoto, O, Kanazawa, I, et al. Regional distribution of amino acid transmitters in postmortem brains of presenile and senile dementia of Alzheimer type. Ann Neurol 1986;19:263–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Perry, EK, Perry, RH, Blessed, G, Tomlinson, BE. Necropsy evidenceof central cholinergic deficits in senile dementia. Lancet 1977;1:189 Google Scholar
27. Whitehouse, PJ, Price, DL, Clark, AW, Coyle, JT, DeLong, MR. Alzheimer disease: evidence for selective loss of cholinergic neurons in the nucleus basalis. Ann Neurol 1981;10:122–126.Google Scholar
28. Iyo, M, Namba, H, Fukushi, K, etal. Measurement of acetylcholinesterase by positron emission tomography in the brains of healthy controls and patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet 1997;349:1805–1809.Google Scholar
29. Bierer, LM, Haroutunian, V, Gabriel, S, et al. Neurochemicalcorrelates of dementia severity in Alzheimer’s disease: relative importance of the cholinergic deficits. J Neurochem 1995;64:749–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Bierer, LM, Hof, PR, Purohit, DP, et al. Neocortical neurofibrillarytangles correlate with dementia severity in Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol 1995;52:81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Launer, LJ, Brock, DB. Population-based studies of AD: messageand methods: an epidemiologic view. Stat Med 2004;23:191–197.Google Scholar
32. Wade, JP, Mirsen, TR, Hachinski, VC, et al. The clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol 1987;44:24–29.Google Scholar
33. Joachim, CL, Morris, JH, Selkoe, DJ. Clinically diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease: autopsy results in 150 cases. Ann Neurol 1988;24:50–56.Google Scholar
34. Becker, JT, Boller, F, Lopez, OL, Saxton, J, McGonigle, KL. Thenatural history of Alzheimer’s disease. Description of study cohort and accuracy of diagnosis. Arch Neurol 1994;51:585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Price, JL, Ko, AI, Wade, MJ, et al. Neuron number in the entorhinalcortex and CA1 in preclinical Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 2001;58:1395–1402.Google Scholar
36. Helmes, E, Merskey, H, Fox, H, et al. Patterns of deterioration in seniledementia of the Alzheimer type. Arch Neurol 1995;52:306–310.Google Scholar
37. Jobst, KA, Smith, AD, Szatmari, M, et al. Rapidly progressingatrophy of medial temporal lobe in Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet 1994;343:829–830.Google Scholar
38. Hogervorst, E, Bandelow, S, Combrinck, M, Irani, S, Smith, AD. Thevalidity and reliability of 6 sets of clinical criteria to classify Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia in cases confirmed post-mortem: added value of a decision tree approach. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2003;16:170–180.Google Scholar
39. Jagust, WJ, Budinger, TF, Reed, BR. The diagnosis of dementia withsingle photon emission computed tomography. Arch Neurol 1987;44:258–262.Google Scholar
40. Johnson, KA, Holman, BL, Mueller, SP, et al. Single photonemission computed tomography in Alzheimer’s disease. Abnormal iofetamine I 123 uptake reflects dementia severity. Arch Neurol 1988;45:392–396.Google Scholar
41. Knopman, DS, DeKosky, ST, Cummings, JL, et al. Practiceparameter: diagnosis of dementia (an evidence-based review). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2001;56:1143–1153.Google Scholar
42. Wolfe, N, Reed, BR, Eberling, JL, Jagust, WJ. Temporal lobeperfusion on single photon emission computed tomography predicts the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease. ArchNeurol 1995;52:257–262.Google Scholar
43. Burns, A, Jacoby, R, Levy, R. Progression of cognitive impairmentin Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39:39–45.Google Scholar
44. Berg, L, Smith, DS, Morris, JC, et al. Mild senile dementia of theAlzheimer type: 3. Longitudinal and cross-sectional assessment. Ann Neurol 1990;28:648–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Piccini, C, Bracco, L, Falcini, M, Pracucci, G, Amaducci, L. Naturalhistory of Alzheimer’s disease: prognostic value of plateaux. J Neurol Sci 1995;131:177–182.Google Scholar
46. La Rue, A. Methodological concerns: longitudinal studies ofdementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1987;1:180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47. Gould, R, Abramson, I, Galasko, D, Salmon, D. Rate of cognitivechange in Alzheimer’s disease: methodological approaches using random effects models. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2001;7:813–824.Google Scholar
48. Nyenhuis, DL, Garron, DC. Psychometric considerations whenmeasuring cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuroepidemiology 1997;16:185–190.Google Scholar
49. Heyman, A, Peterson, B, Fillenbaum, G, Pieper, C. The consortium toestablish a registry for Alzheimer’s disease (CERAD). Part XIV: Demographic and clinical predictors of survival in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1996;46:656–660.Google Scholar
50. Heston, LL, Mastri, AR, Anderson, VE, White, J. Dementia of the Alzheimer type. Clinical genetics, natural history, and associated conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1981;38:1085–1090.Google Scholar
51. Kaszniak, AW, Wilson, RS, Fox, JH, Stebbins, GT. Cognitiveassessment in Alzheimer’s disease: cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives. Can J Neurol Sci 1986;13:420–423.Google Scholar
52. Bracco, L, Gallato, R, Grigoletto, F, et al. Factors affecting courseand survival in Alzheimer’s disease. A 9-year longitudinal study. Arch Neurol 1994;51:1213–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. Bowen, JD, Malter, AD, Sheppard, L, et al. Predictors of mortality inpatients diagnosed with probable Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1996;47:433–439.Google Scholar
54. Hughes, CP, Berg, L, Danziger, WL, Coben, LA, Martin, RL. A newclinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatry 1982;140:566–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Berg, L. Clinical dementia rating. Br J Psychiatry 1984;145:339 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
56. Reisberg, B, Ferris, SH, Franssen, E, Jenkins, EC, Wisniewski, KE. Clinical features of a neuropathologically verified familial Alzheimer’s cohort with onset in the fourth decade: comparison with senile onset Alzheimer’s disease and etiopathogenicimplications. Prog Clin Biol Res 1989;317:43–54.Google Scholar
57. Morris, JC, Storandt, M, Miller, JP, et al. Mild cognitive impairmentrepresents early-stage Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 2001;58:397–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58. Arriagada, PV, Growdon, JH, Hedley-Whyte, ET, Hyman, BT. Neurofibrillary tangles but not senile plaques parallel duration and severity of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1992;42:631–639.Google Scholar
59. Terry, RD, Peck, A, DeTeresa, R, Schechter, R, Horoupian, DS. Somemorphometric aspects of the brain in senile dementia of the Alzheimer type. Ann Neurol 1981;10:184–192.Google Scholar
60. Terry, RD, Masliah, E, Salmon, DP, et al. Physical basis of cognitivealterations in Alzheimer’s disease: synapse loss is the major correlate of cognitive impairment. Ann Neurol 1991;30:572–580.Google Scholar
61. Iraizoz, I, Guijarro, JL, Gonzalo, LM, de Lacalle, S. Neuropathological changes in the nucleus basalis correlate with clinical measures of dementia. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 1999;98:186–196.Google Scholar
62. Blessed, G, Tomlinson, BE, Roth, M. The association betweenquantitative measures of dementia and of senile change in the cerebral grey matter of elderly subjects. Br J Psychiatry 1968;114:797–811.Google Scholar
63. Katzman, R, Brown, T, Thal, LJ, et al. Comparison of rate of annualchange of mental status score in four independent studies of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol 1988;24:384–389.Google Scholar
64. Teri, L, Hughes, JP, Larson, EB. Cognitive deterioration in Alzheimer’s disease: behavioral and health factors. J Gerontol 1990;45:58–63.Google Scholar
65. Folstein, MF, Folstein, SE, McHugh, PR. “Mini-mental state”. Apractical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–198.Google Scholar
66. Mattis, S. Mental Status Examination for Organic Mental Syndromein the Elderly Patient. In: Bellak, L, & Karasu, TB, (Eds). New York: Grune & Stratton, 1976:Google Scholar
67. Rosen, WG, Mohs, RC, Davis, KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984;141:1356–1364.Google Scholar
68. Roth, M, Tym, E, Mountjoy, CQ, et al. CAMDEX. A standardisedinstrument for the diagnosis of mental disorder in the elderly with special reference to the early detection of dementia. Br J Psychiatry 1986;149:698–709.Google Scholar
69. Morris, JC, Heyman, A, Mohs, RC, et al. The Consortium toEstablish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical and neuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1989;39:1159–1165.Google Scholar
70. Schmitt, FA, Cragar, D, Ashford, JW, et al. Measuring cognition inadvanced Alzheimer’s disease for clinical trials. J Neural Transm (Suppl) 2002;135–148.Google Scholar
71. Ballard, C, O’Brien, J, Morris, CM, et al. The progression ofcognitive impairment in dementia with Lewy bodies, vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001;16:499–503.Google Scholar
72. van Belle, G, Arnold, A. Reliability of cognitive tests used in Alzheimer’s disease. Stat Med 2000;19:1411–1420.Google Scholar
73. Crum, RM, Anthony, JC, Bassett, SS, Folstein, MF. Population-basednorms for the Mini-Mental State Examination by age andeducational level. JAMA 1993;269:2386–2391.Google Scholar
74. Burns, A, Lawlor, B, Craig, S. Rating scales in old age psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry 2002;180:161–167.Google Scholar
75. Uhlmann, RF, Larson, EB, Koepsell, TD. Hearing impairment andcognitive decline in senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986;34:207–210.Google Scholar
76. Uhlmann, RF, Larson, EB, Buchner, DM. Correlations of Mini-Mental State and modified Dementia Rating Scale to measures of transitional health status in dementia. J Gerontol 1987;42:33–36.Google Scholar
77. Becker, JT, Huff, FJ, Nebes, RD, Holland, A, Boller, F. Neuropsycho-logical function in Alzheimer’s disease. Pattern of impairment and rates of progression. Arch Neurol 1988;45:263–268.Google Scholar
78. Salmon, DP, Thal, LJ, Butters, N, Heindel, WC. Longitudinalevaluation of dementia of the Alzheimer type: a comparison of 3 standardized mental status examinations. Neurology 1990;40:1225–1230.Google Scholar
79. Corey-Bloom, J, Galasko, D, Hofstetter, CR, Jackson, JE, Thal, LJ. Clinical features distinguishing large cohorts with possible AD, probable AD, and mixed dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993;41:31–37.Google Scholar
80. Knopman, D, Gracon, S. Observations on the short-term ‘naturalhistory’ of probable Alzheimer’s disease in a controlled clinicaltrial. Neurology 1994;44:260–265.Google Scholar
81. Mortimer, JA, Ebbitt, B, Jun, SP, Finch, MD. Predictors of cognitiveand functional progression in patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1992;42:1689–1696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82. Hogan, DB, Thierer, DE, Ebly, EM, Parhad, IM. Progression andoutcome of patients in a Canadian dementia clinic. Can J Neurol Sci 1994;21:331–338.Google Scholar
83. Fillenbaum, GG, Heyman, A, Wilkinson, WE, Haynes, CS. Comparison of two screening tests in Alzheimer’s disease. The correlation and reliability of the Mini-Mental State Examinationand the modified Blessed test. Arch Neurol 1987;44:924–927.Google Scholar
84. Thal, LJ, Grundman, M, Golden, R. Alzheimer’s disease: acorrelational analysis of the Blessed Information-Memory-Concentration Test and the Mini-Mental State Exam. Neurology 1986;36:262–264.Google Scholar
85. Kaufer, DI, Cummings, JL, Ketchel, P, et al. Validation of the NPI-Q, a brief clinical form of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2000;12:233–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
86. Yesavage, JA, Poulsen, SL, Sheikh, J, Tanke, E. Rates of change ofcommon measures of impairment in senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Psychopharmacol Bull 1988;24:531–534.Google Scholar
87. Doody, RS, Massman, P, Dunn, JK. A method for estimatingprogression rates in Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 2001;58:449–454.Google Scholar
88. Haxby, JV, Raffaele, K, Gillette, J, Schapiro, MB, Rapoport, SI. Individual trajectories of cognitive decline in patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1992;14:575–592.Google Scholar
89. Stern, RG, Mohs, RC, Davidson, M, et al. A longitudinal study of Alzheimer’s disease: measurement, rate, and predictors of cognitive deterioration. Am J Psychiatry 1994;151:390–396.Google Scholar
90. Brooks, JO, Yesavage, JA. Identification of fast and slow declinersin Alzheimer disease: a different approach. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1995;9 (Suppl 1):S19-S25Google Scholar
91. Mohs, RC, Schmeidler, J, Aryan, M. Longitudinal studies ofcognitive, functional and behavioural change in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Stat Med 2000;19:1401–1409.Google Scholar
92. Morris, JC, Edland, S, Clark, C, et al. The consortium to establish aregistry for Alzheimer’s disease (CERAD). Part IV. Rates of cognitive change in the longitudinal assessment of probable Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1993;43:2457–2465.Google Scholar
93. Marra, C, Silveri, MC, Gainotti, G. Predictors of cognitive decline inthe early stage of probable Alzheimer’s disease. Dement GeriatrCogn Disord 2000;11:212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
94. Ward, A, Caro, JJ, Kelley, H, Eggleston, A, Molloy, W. Describingcognitive decline of patients at the mild or moderate stages of Alzheimer’s disease using the Standardized MMSE. Int Psychogeriatr 2002;14:249–258.Google Scholar
95. Cockburn, J, Keene, J, Hope, T, Smith, P. Progressive decline in NART score with increasing dementia severity. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2000;22:508–517.Google Scholar
96. Berg, G, Edwards, DF, Danzinger, WL, Berg, L. Longitudinal changein three brief assessments of SDAT. J Am Geriatr Soc 1987;35:205–212.Google Scholar
97. van Belle, G, Uhlmann, RF, Hughes, JP, Larson, EB. Reliability of estimates of changes in mental status test performance in senile dementia of the Alzheimer type. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:589–595.Google Scholar
98. Aevarsson, O, Skoog, I. A longitudinal population study of the mini-mental state examination in the very old: relation to dementia and education. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2000;11:166–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
99. Lucca, U, Comelli, M, Tettamanti, M, Tiraboschi, P, Spagnoli, A. Rate of progression and prognostic factors in Alzheimer’s disease: a prospective study. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993;41:45–49.Google Scholar
100. Thal, LJ, Grundman, M, Klauber, MR. Dementia: characteristics of a referral population and factors associated with progression. Neurology 1988;38:1083–1090.Google Scholar
101. Ortof, E, Crystal, HA. Rate of progression of Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 1989;37:511–514.Google Scholar
102. Locascio, JJ, Growdon, JH, Corkin, S. Cognitive test performance indetecting, staging, and tracking Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol 1995;52:1087–1099.Google Scholar
103. Burns, A, Lawlor, B, Craig, S. Assessment Scales in Old AgePsychiatry. London, England: Martin Dunitz, 1999:Google Scholar
104. Monsch, AU, Bondi, MW, Salmon, DP, et al. Clinical validity of theMattis Dementia Rating Scale in detecting Dementia of the Alzheimer type. A double cross-validation and application to a community-dwelling sample. Arch Neurol 1995;52:899–904.Google Scholar
105. Pappas, BA, Bayley, PJ, Bui, BK, Hansen, LA, Thal, LJ. Cholineacetyltransferase activity and cognitive domain scores of Alzheimer’s patients. Neurobiol Aging 2000;21:11–17.Google Scholar
106. Butters, N, Granholm, E, Salmon, DP, Grant, I, Wolfe, J. Episodic andsemantic memory: a comparison of amnesic and dementedpatients. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1987;9:479–497.Google Scholar
107. Troster, AI, Salmon, DP, McCullough, D, Butters, N. A comparison ofthe category fluency deficits associated with Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s disease. Brain Lang 1989;37:500–513.Google Scholar
108. Joseph, L, Wolfson, DB, Belisle, P, et al. Taking account of between-patient variability when modeling decline in Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149:963–973.Google Scholar
109. Kramer-Ginsberg, E, Mohs, RC, Aryan, M, et al. Clinical predictorsof course for Alzheimer patients in a longitudinal study: a preliminary report. Psychopharmacol Bull 1988;24:458–462.Google Scholar
110. Mohs, RC, Rosen, WG, Davis, KL. The Alzheimer’s diseaseassessment scale: an instrument for assessing treatment efficacy. Psychopharmacol Bull 1983;19:448–450.Google Scholar
111. Gillen, TE, Gregg, KM, Yuan, H, Kurth, MC, Krishnan, KR. Clinicaltrials in Alzheimer’s disease. Calculating Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subsection with the data from the consortium to establish a registry for Alzheimer’s disease. Psychopharmacol Bull 2001;35:83–96.Google Scholar
112. Doraiswamy, PM, Kaiser, L, Bieber, F, Garman, RL. The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale: evaluation of psychometric properties and patterns of cognitive decline in multicenter clinical trials of mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2001;15:174–183.Google Scholar
113. McLendon, BM, Doraiswamy, PM. Defining meaningful change in Alzheimer’s disease trials: the donepezil experience. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1999;12:39–48.Google Scholar
114. Schmeidler, J, Mohs, RC, Aryan, M. Relationship of disease severityto decline on specific cognitive and functional measures in Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1998;12:146–151.Google Scholar
115. Zec, RF, Landreth, ES, Vicari, SK, et al. Alzheimer DiseaseAssessment Scale: a subtest analysis. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1992;6:164–181.Google Scholar
116. Neri, M, Rubichi, S, DeVreese, LP, Roth, M, Cipolli, C. Validation ofthe full and short forms of the CAMDEX interview for diagnosing dementia: evidence from a one-year follow-up study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1998;9:339–346.Google Scholar
117. Lindeboom, J, Ter Horst, R, Hooyer, C, Dinkgreve, M, Jonker, C. Some psychometric properties of the CAMCOG. Psychol Med 1993;23:213–219.Google Scholar
118. Verhey, FR, Huppert, FA, Korten, EC, et al. Cross-national comparisons of the Cambridge Cognitive Examination-revised: the CAMCOG-R: results from the European Harmonization Project for Instruments in Dementia. Age Ageing 2003;32:534–540.Google Scholar
119. Blessed, G, Black, SE, Butler, T, Kay, DW. The diagnosis of dementiain the elderly. A comparison of CAMCOG (the cognitive section of CAMDEX), the AGECAT program, DSM-III, the Mini-Mental State Examination and some short rating scales. Br J Psychiatry 1991;159:193–198.Google Scholar
120. Nielsen, H, Lolk, A, Andersen, K, Andersen, J, Kragh-Sorensen, P. Characteristics of elderly who develop Alzheimer's disease during the next two years-a neuropsychological study using CAMCOG. The Odense Study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999;14:957–963.Google Scholar
121. Forstl, H, Sattel, H, Besthorn, C, et al. Longitudinal cognitive,electroencephalographic and morphological brain changes in ageing and Alzheimer’s disease. Br J Psychiatry 1996;168:280–286.Google Scholar
122. Haupt, M, Kurz, A, Pollman, S, Romero, B, Lauter, H. Symptomprogression in Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39:639.Google Scholar
123. Williams, RN, McIntosh, DE, Eells, GT, Dean, RS, Hendrie, H. Neuropsychological subgroups of dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Int J Neurosci 1996;87:79–90.Google Scholar
124. Schmand, B, Walstra, G, Lindeboom, J, Teunisse, S, Jonker, C. Earlydetection of Alzheimer’s disease using the Cambridge Cognitive Examination (CAMCOG). Psychol Med 2000;30:619–627.Google Scholar
125. Wild, KV, Kaye, JA. The rate of progression of Alzheimer’s diseasein the later stages: evidence from the Severe Impairment Battery. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 1998;4:512–516.Google Scholar
126. Schmitt, FA, Ashford, W, Ernesto, C, et al. The severe impairmentbattery: concurrent validity and the assessment of longitudinal change in Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997;11 (Suppl 2):S51–S56Google Scholar
127. Panisset, M, Roudier, M, Saxton, J, Boller, F. Severe impairmentbattery. A neuropsychological test for severely demented patients. Arch Neurol 1994;51:41–45.Google Scholar
128. Peavy, GM, Salmon, DP, Rice, VA, et al. Neuropsychologicalassessment of severely demeted elderly: the severe cognitive impairment profile. Arch Neurol 1996;53:367–372.Google Scholar
129. Albert, M, Cohen, C. The Test for Severe Impairment: an instrumentfor the assessment of patients with severe cognitive dysfunction. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992;40:449–453.Google Scholar
130. Feldman, H, Gauthier, S, Hecker, J, et al. A 24-week, randomized, double-blind study of donepezil in moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 2001;57:613–620.Google Scholar
131. Ruitenberg, A, Kalmijn, S, de Ridder, MA, et al. Prognosis of Alzheimer’s disease: the Rotterdam Study. Neuroepidemiology 2001;20:188–195.Google Scholar
132. Sevush, S, Peruyera, G, Bertran, A, Cisneros, W. A three-factor modelof cognition in Alzheimer disease. Cogn Behav Neurol 2003;16:110–117.Google Scholar
133. Stern, Y, Liu, X, Albert, M, et al. Application of a growth curveapproach to modeling the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1996;51:M179–M184.Google Scholar
134. Liu, X, Tsai, WY, Stern, Y. A functional decline model for prevalentcohort data. Stat Med 1996;15:1023–1032.Google Scholar
135. Milliken, JK, Edland, SD. Mixed effect models of longitudinal Alzheimer’s disease data: a cautionary note. Stat Med 2000;19: 1617–1629.Google Scholar
136. Xiong, C, Miller, JP, Morris, JC. Testing correlation of cognitivedecline at adjacent stages of dementia. J Alzheimers Dis 2003;5:409–418.Google Scholar
137. Feldman, H, Sauter, A, Donald, A, et al. The disability assessment fordementia scale: a 12-month study of functional ability in mild to moderate severity Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2001;15:89–95.Google Scholar
138. Fox, NC, Freeborough, PA, Rossor, MN. Visualisation and quantification of rates of atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet 1996;348:94–97.Google Scholar
139. Fox, NC, Scahill, RI, Crum, WR, Rossor, MN. Correlation betweenrates of brain atrophy and cognitive decline in AD. Neurology 1999;52:1687–1689.Google Scholar
140. Mohs, RC, Knopman, D, Petersen, RC, et al. Development ofcognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: additions to the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997;11 (Suppl 2):S13–S21.Google Scholar