
doi: 10.3233/jad-160915
pmid: 28269773
Background: Recruitment methods can determine sample characteristics in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease dementia, but little is known about its influence in subjective cognitive decline (SCD). Objective: To determine the influence of two types of recruitment methods in the characteristics of individuals with SCD. Methods: We select and compare clinical and neuropsychological features, and frequency of APOE ɛ4 allele of 326 subjects with SCD from two cohorts: Open House Initiative (OHI) versus Memory Unit (MU). A logistic regression analysis (LRA), using gender and years of education as covariates, was used to examine the neuropsychological variables. Results: The OHI sample were mostly women (75.9% versus 64.5%, p < 0.05), with higher educational level (12.15 [3.71] versus 10.70 [3.80] years, p = 0.001), and more family history of dementia (138 [62.7%] versus 44 [41.5%], p < 0.001) than the MU sample. Also, the OHI sample showed better overall neuropsychological performance than the MU sample, and after a LRA, this trend continued in automatic response inhibition capacity, abstract reasoning, and recognition memory. We did not find differences in age, depression history, and/or APOE ɛ4 allele frequency. Conclusion: SCD subjects showed different demographic and neuropsychological characteristics depending on the recruitment method, which should be taken into account in the design of research studies with this target population.
Male, Patient Selection, Apolipoprotein E4, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Diagnostic Self Evaluation, Logistic Models, Sex Factors, Educational Status, Humans, Cognitive Dysfunction, Female, Genetic Predisposition to Disease
Male, Patient Selection, Apolipoprotein E4, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Diagnostic Self Evaluation, Logistic Models, Sex Factors, Educational Status, Humans, Cognitive Dysfunction, Female, Genetic Predisposition to Disease
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 33 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
