Cited by 216Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

Neuropsychological Contributions to the Early Identification of Alzheimer’s Disease

Open access
Bondi, Mark W., Jak, Amy J., Delano-Wood, Lisa, Jacobson, Mark W., Delis, Dean C., Salmon, David P.·2008·Neuropsychology Review

Abstract

A wealth of evidence demonstrates that a prodromal period of Alzheimer's disease (AD) exists for some years prior to the appearance of significant cognitive and functional declines required for the clinical diagnosis. This prodromal period of decline is characterized by a number of different neuropsychological and brain changes, and reliable identification of individuals prior to the development of significant clinical symptoms remains a top priority of research. In this review we provide an overview of those neuropsychological changes. In particular, we examine specific domains of cognition that appear to be negatively affected during the prodromal period of AD, and we review newer analytic strategies designed to examine cognitive asymmetries or discrepancies between higher-order cognitive functions versus fundamental skills. Finally, we provide a critical examination of the clinical concept of Mild Cognitive Impairment and offer suggestions for an increased focus on the impact of cerebrovascular disease (CVD) and CVD risk during the prodromal period of AD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11065-008-9054-1

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The percentage of older adults classified as MCI ranges greatly from 11% to 74% depending on the number of tests considered in the diagnosis and the cutoffs used to define objective cognitive impairment.

    “Jak and Bondi and colleagues [24, 25] have found that the percentage of older adults classified as MCI ranges greatly from 11% to 74% depending on the number of tests considered in the diagnosis and the cutoffs used to define objective cognitive impairment (see also [26]).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bondi, M. W., Jak, A. J., Delano-Wood, L., Jacobson, M. W., Delis, D. C., & Salmon, D. P.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Bondi, Mark W.
Venue
Neuropsychology Review
Published
2008-03
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
73-90
ISSN
  • 1040-7308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6660
OpenAlex
W1971761527
Cited by
216
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 12
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P50AG005131, R01AG012674, K24AG026431)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, prodromal Alzheimer's disease, early detection, mild cognitive impairment, cognitive asymmetry, cognitive domain, cerebrovascular disease, cerebrovascular risk, neuropsychological assessment, cognitive decline
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Neuropsychology, Risk Factors

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