Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Five-Year Follow-up of Cognitive Impairment With No Dementia

Tuokko, Holly, Frerichs, Robert, Graham, Janice, Rockwood, Kenneth, Kristjansson, Betsy, Fisk, John, Bergman, Howard, Kozma, Al, McDowell, Ian·2003·Archives of Neurology

Abstract

CONTEXT: The importance of early identification of dementia has prompted numerous investigations of mild cognitive impairment and the preclinical stages of progressive degenerative disorders. To date, there is limited information from large-scale studies regarding outcomes of persons specifically identified with cognitive impairment but no dementia (CIND). OBJECTIVES: To investigate outcomes for persons with no cognitive impairment (NCI) or CIND, focusing on its etiologic subcategories, from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) and to examine the predictive validity of a set of core features thought to be early manifestations of subsequent dementia. DESIGN: Five-year, longitudinal follow-up of all persons without dementia examined during the first phase of the CSHA in 1991. SETTING: Community and institutional settings. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based sample of 883 persons with NCI and 801 persons with CIND at the first phase of the CSHA. At follow-up, 517 persons with NCI (59%) and 327 persons with CIND (41%) were alive and received clinical diagnoses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, institutionalization, and clinical diagnoses using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition criteria for dementia. RESULTS: Persons with CIND were more likely than those with NCI to die (49% vs 30%), to be admitted to facility care (29% vs 14%), or to receive diagnoses of dementia (47% vs 15%) at follow-up. Those subsequently diagnosed as having dementia were more likely to have had impaired memory, informant-reported change in memory, and functional impairment at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with CIND were more likely to have a negative outcome than persons with NCI during a 5-year interval. This was true across etiologic subcategories and suggests that the use of specific diagnostic criteria sets does not improve our identification of those who develop dementia compared with a broader, more inclusive approach. More factors contributed to the prediction of all forms of dementia than to AD, but the most accurate prediction was for those who remained dementia free.

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.60.4.577

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
Tuokko, H., Frerichs, R., Graham, J., Rockwood, K., Kristjansson, B., Fisk, J., Bergman, H., Kozma, A., & McDowell, I.
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Published
2003-04-01
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
577
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969091139
Cited by
227
References
2
FWCI
12.07
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: Five-Year Follow-up of Cognitive Impairment With No Dementia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archneur.60.4.577
The paper
Tuokko, H., Frerichs, R., Graham, J., Rockwood, K., Kristjansson, B., Fisk, J., Bergman, H., Kozma, A., & McDowell, I. (2003). Five-Year Follow-up of Cognitive Impairment With No Dementia. Archives of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.60.4.577

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.