Cited by 278Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

Prediction of longitudinal cognitive decline in normal elderly with subjective complaints using electrophysiological imaging

Prichep, L.S., John, E.R., Ferris, S.H., Rausch, L., Fang, Z., Cancro, R., Torossian, C., Reisberg, B.·2006·Neurobiology of Aging

Abstract

An extensive literature reports changes in quantitative electroencephalogram (QEEG) with aging and a relationship between magnitude of changes and degree of clinical deterioration in progressive dementia. Longitudinal studies have demonstrated QEEG differences between mild cognitively impaired (MCI) elderly who go on to decline and those who do not. This study focuses on normal elderly with subjective cognitive complaints to assess the utility of QEEG in predicting future decline within 7 years. Forty-four normal elderly received extensive clinical, neurocognitive and QEEG examinations at baseline. All study subjects (N = 44) had only subjective complaints but no objective evidence of cognitive deficit (evaluated using the Global Deterioration Scale [GDS] score, GDS stage = 2) at baseline and were re-evaluated during 7-9 year follow-up. Baseline QEEGs of Decliners differed significantly (p < 0.0001, by MANOVA) from Non-Decliners, characterized by increases in theta power, slowing of mean frequency, and changes in covariance among regions, especially on the right hemisphere. Using logistic regression, an R2 of 0.93 (p < 0.001) was obtained between baseline QEEG features and probability of future decline, with an overall predictive accuracy of 90%. These data indicate high sensitivity and specificity for baseline QEEG as a differential predictor of future cognitive state in normal, subjectively impaired elderly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2005.07.021

Cites

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 69 · Cited by 278

Authors
Prichep, L. S., John, E. R., Ferris, S. H., Rausch, L., Fang, Z., Cancro, R., Torossian, C., & Reisberg, B.
Affiliations
  • Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Prichep, L.S.
Venue
Neurobiology of Aging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-03
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
471-481
ISSN
0197-4580 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119642008
Cited by
278
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurobiology of Aging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (AG03051, R01AG003051, P30AG008051, AG 08051)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-32577)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01 RR 00096, M01RR000096)
  • NIH Clinical Center
  • Cordis
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
longitudinal cognitive decline, subjective cognitive complaints, quantitative EEG, cognitive decline prediction, theta power, mean frequency, right hemisphere, Global Deterioration Scale, mild cognitive impairment, aging
MeSH terms
Aged, Cognition Disorders, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Electroencephalography, Electrophysiology, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results

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