Cognitive training in MCI may stimulate pre-existing neural reserves or recruit neural circuitry as “compensatory scaffolding” prompting neuroplastic reorganization to meet task demands (Reuter-Lorenz & Park, 2014). However, existing systematic reviews and meta-analytic studies exploring the benefits of cognitive interventions in MCI have been mixed. An updated examination regarding the efficacy of cognitive intervention in MCI is needed given improvements in adherence to MCI diagnostic criteria in subject selection, better defined interventions and strategies applied, increased use of neuropsychological measures pre- and post-intervention, as well as identification of moderator variables which may influence treatment. As such, this meta-analytic review was conducted to examine the efficacy of cognitive intervention in individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) versus MCI controls based on performance of neuropsychological outcome measures in randomized controlled trials (RCT). RCT studies published from January 1995 to June 2017 were obtained through source databases of MEDLINE-R, PubMed, Healthstar, Global Health, PSYCH-INFO, and Health and Psychological Instruments using search parameters for MCI diagnostic category (mild cognitive impairment, MCI, pre-Alzheimer’s disease, early cognitive decline, early onset Alzheimer’s disease, and preclinical Alzheimer’s disease) and the intervention or training conducted (intervention, training, stimulation, rehabilitation, or treatment). Other inclusion and exclusion criteria included subject selection based on established MCI criteria, RCT design in an outpatient setting, MCI controls (active or passive), and outcomes based on objective neuropsychological measures. From the 1199 abstracts identified, 26 articles met inclusion criteria for the meta-analyses completed across eleven (11) countries; 92.31% of which have been published within the past 7 years. A series of meta-analyses were performed to examine the effects of cognitive intervention by cognitive domain, type of training, and intervention content (cognitive domain targeted). We found significant, moderate effects for multicomponent training (Hedges’ g observed = 0.398; CI [0.164, 0.631]; Z = 3.337; p = 0.001; Q = 55.511; df = 15; p = 0.000; I 2 = 72.978%; τ 2 = 0.146) as well as multidomain-focused strategies (Hedges’ g = 0.230; 95% CI [0.108, 0.352]; Z = 3.692; p < 0.001; Q = 12.713; df = 12; p = 0.390; I 2 = 5.612; τ 2 = 0.003). The effects for other interventions explored by cognitive domain, training type, or intervention content were indeterminate due to concerns for heterogeneity, bias, and small cell sizes. In addition, subgroup and meta-regression analyses were conducted with the moderators of MCI category, mode of intervention, training type, intervention content, program duration (total hours), type of control group (active or passive), post-intervention follow-up assessment period, and control for repeat administration. We found significant overall effects for intervention content wi...
Introduction Despite advances in imaging retinal amyloidosis, a quantitative and topographical investigation of retinal amyloid beta burden in patients with cognitive decline has never been reported. Methods We used the specific amyloid‐binding fluorophore curcumin and laser ophthalmoscopy to assess retinal amyloid imaging (RAI) in 34 patients with cognitive decline. We automatically quantified retinal amyloid count (RAC) and area in the superotemporal retinal sub‐regions and performed correlation analyses with cognitive and brain volumetric parameters. Results RAC significantly and inversely correlated with hippocampal volume (HV; r = ‐0.39, P = .04). The proximal mid‐periphery (PMP) RAC and RA areas were significantly greater in patients with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) score < 26 ( P = .01; Cohen d = 0.83 and 0.81, respectively). PMP showed significantly more RAC and area in subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) compared to cognitively normal ( P = .04; Cohen d = 0.83). Conclusion Quantitative RAI is a feasible technique and PMP RAC may predict HV. Future larger studies should determine RAI's potential as a biomarker of early AD.
Patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) often present with an asymmetric left or right-sided anterior cerebral perfusion abnormality that is associated with differential behavioral symptoms. However, whether patients with primarily right versus left FTD also have unique neuropsychological characteristics has not been previously investigated. Comparisons of 11 patients with right-sided FTD and 11 with left FTD indicated that the 2 patient groups showed relatively distinct cognitive profiles. Patients with right FTD exhibited relatively worse performance on PIQ than VIQ, and on select nonverbal executive tasks relative to their verbal analogs (e.g., design fluency , word generation; Picture Arrangement , word sequencing). In contrast, patients with left FTD showed the opposite pattern. In addition, the 2 patient groups differed on several absolute test scores; patients with right FTD demonstrated more errors and perseverative responses, and worse percent conceptual level responses, on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, while the left FTD patients obtained significantly worse scores on the Boston Naming Test, and Stroop word reading and color naming. Verbal and nonverbal memory, mental speed, visual perceptual-constructional skill, and IQ subtest scaled scores did not significantly differ between groups. These data indicate that FTD should not be viewed as a unitary disorder, and that neuropsychological testing holds promise for the differential diagnosis of right versus left FTD. (JINS, 1999, 5, 616-622.)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.