% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Polcher:164987,
      author       = {Polcher, Alexandra and Wolfsgruber, Steffen and Peters,
                      Oliver and Frölich, Lutz and Wiltfang, Jens and Kornhuber,
                      Johannes and Hüll, Michael and Rüther, Eckart and Lewczuk,
                      Piotr and Maier, Wolfgang and Jessen, Frank and Wagner,
                      Michael},
      title        = {{A} {C}omparison of {O}perational {D}efinitions for {M}ild
                      {C}ognitive {I}mpairment.},
      journal      = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease},
      volume       = {88},
      number       = {4},
      issn         = {1387-2877},
      address      = {Amsterdam},
      publisher    = {IOS Press},
      reportid     = {DZNE-2022-01391},
      pages        = {1663-1678},
      year         = {2022},
      note         = {CC BY-NC: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/},
      abstract     = {Consideration of many tests from different cognitive
                      domains in defining mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is
                      clinical routine, but guidelines for a neuropsychological
                      operationalization of MCI are lacking.Among different
                      operational MCI criteria, to identify those which are best
                      in predicting either conversion to dementia, or a biomarker
                      profile indicative for Alzheimer's disease
                      (AD).Memory-clinic patients without dementia (N = 558; mean
                      age = 66; up to 3 years of follow-up; n = 360 with baseline
                      CSF biomarkers) were included in an observational study
                      using most liberal criteria of cognitive impairment. Four
                      operational definitions of MCI were retrospectively applied:
                      1) amnestic MCI (word list delayed recall), 2) CERAD total
                      score, 3) comprehensive criteria and 4) base rate corrected
                      CERAD. We compared their accuracy in predicting incident
                      all-cause dementia or AD dementia within three years, or a
                      concurrent CSF Aβ42/tau-ratio indicative of AD.The four
                      definitions overlapped considerably, classified $35-58\%$ of
                      the original sample as impaired and were associated with
                      markedly increased PPVs regarding incident all-cause
                      dementia $(39-46\%$ versus $26\%$ of the original sample),
                      AD dementia and AD biomarker positivity. The base-rate
                      corrected MCI definition had the highest prognostic
                      accuracy.he operational criteria examined seem suitable to
                      specify MCI in memory clinic settings, as they identify
                      subjects at high risk of clinical progression. Depending on
                      the neuropsychological battery in use, one or several of
                      these criteria could help to calibrate the clinical judgment
                      of test results, reduce false-positive decisions, and define
                      risk-enriched groups for clinical trials.},
      keywords     = {Aged / Alzheimer Disease: psychology / Amyloid
                      beta-Peptides / Biomarkers / Cognitive Dysfunction: etiology
                      / Disease Progression / Humans / Male / Neuropsychological
                      Tests / Retrospective Studies / Alzheimer’s disease
                      (Other) / DSM-5 mild NCD (Other) / biomarker (Other) /
                      cognition (Other) / conversion (Other) / dementia (Other) /
                      diagnosis (Other) / mild cognitive impairment (Other) /
                      prognosis (Other)},
      cin          = {AG Wagner / AG Dirnagl / AG Wiltfang / AG Klockgether / AG
                      Jessen},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-2719)1011201 / I:(DE-2719)1810002 /
                      I:(DE-2719)1410006 / I:(DE-2719)1011001 /
                      I:(DE-2719)1011102},
      pnm          = {353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pmc          = {pmc:PMC9484125},
      pubmed       = {pmid:35811516},
      doi          = {10.3233/JAD-215548},
      url          = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/164987},
}