Prediction of longitudinal cognitive decline in normal elderly with subjective complaints using electrophysiological imaging
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A predictive accuracy of 90% considering the basic EEG characteristics and the probability of future decline in MCI subjects has been shown.
“A predictive accuracy of 90% considering the basic EEG characteristics and the probability of future decline in MCI subjects has been shown. 54 , 55 , 56 , 57”
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