Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cognitive Impairment in the Nondemented Elderly: Results From the Canadian Study of Health and Aging

Ebly, Erika M.·1995·Archives of Neurology

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe a population that was categorized as "cognitively impaired not demented" (CIND) and to examine the utility of some of the proposed criteria for describing this degree of cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Population-based prevalence study of dementia in those subjects who were 65 years and older. SETTING: Community and institutional settings in Canada. SUBJECTS: Individuals who underwent a clinical evaluation (N = 2914). INTERVENTION: Initial screening with the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) to identify potential cognitive impairment; the 3MS was followed by a detailed clinical examination to confirm the presence of dementia and to determine the probable cause. Clinical examinations were performed on all those subjects who were residing in institutions, those in the community with a 3MS score less than 78, and a sample of those in the community with a 3MS score of 78 or more. Neuropsychological testing was performed as part of the clinical examination when the 3MS score was 50 or more. At the conclusion of the assessment, subjects were categorized as being cognitively normal, CIND, and demented. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of a diagnosis of CIND; demographical, cognitive, and functional characteristics of cognitively normal and CIND subjects and those with early and late dementia; and proportion of subjects who were CIND and met the proposed criteria. RESULTS: Subjects who were categorized as CIND were common and fell between cognitively normal subjects and those with dementia in terms of age, 3MS score, general intellectual function, and performance of daily activities. Because of the restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria, the proposed criteria for cognitive impairment described only 30% of our subjects who were CIND. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects who were categorized as CIND appeared to be distinct from and intermediate between subjects with dementia and cognitively normal subjects. Most individuals did not meet the criteria that were evaluated for describing this group. While the various criteria that were evaluated may accurately define a select subset of cognitively impaired individuals, the natural history and prognosis of such groups, currently unknown, may not be generalizable to the larger population of subjects who are CIND. Further work is needed to clearly define this group, and longitudinal studies are required to determine an outcome.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneur.1995.00540300086018

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Ebly, E. M.
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Published
1995-06-01
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
612
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059554304
Cited by
313
References
0
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive Impairment in the Nondemented Elderly: Results From the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archneur.1995.00540300086018
The paper
Ebly, E. M. (1995). Cognitive Impairment in the Nondemented Elderly: Results From the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Archives of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1995.00540300086018

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.