Demographically adjusted Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test norms in a Swedish and Norwegian cohort aged 49–77 years and comparison with North American norms

Introduction The Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (RCFT) is one of the most commonly used neuropsychological tests in Sweden and Norway. However, no publications provide normative data for this population. The objective of this study was to present demographically adjusted norms for a Swedish and Norwegian population and to evaluate these in an independent comparison group. Methods The RCFT was administrated to 344 healthy controls recruited from the Swedish Gothenburg MCI study, the Norwegian Dementia Disease Initiation study, and the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Bioimage Study. Age ranged from 49 to 77 years (mean = 62.4 years, SD = 5.0 years), and education ranged from 6 to 24 years (mean = 13.3 years, SD = 3.0 years). Using a regression-based procedure, we investigated the effects of age, sex, and years of education on test performance. We compared and evaluated our Swedish and Norwegian norms with North American norms in an independent comparison group of 145 individuals. Results In healthy controls, age and education were associated with performance on the RCFT. When comparing normative RCFT performance in an independent comparison group, North American norms generally overestimated immediate and delayed recall performance. In contrast, our Swedish and Norwegian norms appear to better take into account factors of age and education. Conclusions We presented demographically adjusted norms for the RCFT in a Swedish and Norwegian sample. This is the first normative study of the RCFT that presents normative data for this population. In addition, we showed that North American norms might produce inaccurate normative estimations in an independent comparison group

Precision in neuropsychology. Four challenges when using simplified assumptions

Cognition comprises all thought processes, from perception to memory. Neuropsychological tests are the gold standard (= best way) to measure cognition. However, clinical assessment may at times have to rely on simplified assumptions. This work addresses potential risks of four such assumptions through neuropsychological tests and statistical analysis from: a case report (Paper I); participant data from the Gothenburg Mild Cognitive Impairment study (Papers II, III); and the Swedish Cardio Pulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS Pilot, Paper IV). Paper I showed transfer effects from memory training may affect memory tests. Paper II showed that giving free credits for items not administered inflated the scores of those most impaired in the Boston Naming Test (BNT). Paper III showed practice effects could not be ruled out in mild cognitive impairment, and that mean Δ-scores described change better than isolated Δ-scores. Paper IV showed that administering neuropsychological tests in Swedish to non-native speakers gave lower results in tests tapping speed and attention, and that vocabulary testing may enhance precision. Conclusion: the four assumptions save time at the cost of precision. In the greatest need for precision, (e.g. for detection of gradual change before manifest loss), considering the above findings will improve assessments

Subjective cognitive impairment is a predominantly benign condition in memory clinic patients followed for 6 years: The Gothenburg-oslo MCI Study

Background/Aims: In the quest for prevention or treatment, there is a need to find early markers for preclinical dementia. This study observed memory clinic patients with subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) and normal cognitive function at baseline. The primary aim was to address SCI as a potential risk factor for cognitive decline. The secondary aim was to address a potential relation between (1) baseline cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers and (2) a decline in memory performance over the first 2 years of follow-up, with a possible cognitive decline after 6 years. Methods: Eighty-one patients (mean age 61 years) were recruited from university memory clinics and followed up for 6 years. Results: Eighty-six percent of the cohort remained cognitively stable or improved, 9% developed mild cognitive impairment, and only 5% (n = 4) developed dementia. Regression analysis revealed that low levels of Aβ42 at baseline and memory decline during the first 2 years predicted dementia. When combined, these variables were associated with a 50% risk of developing dementia. Conclusions: Cognitive stability for 86% of the cohort suggests that SCI is predominantly a benign condition with regard to neuropathology. The low number of individuals who developed dementia limits the generalizability of the results and discussion of progression factors.

Subjective Cognitive Impairment Is a Predominantly Benign Condition in Memory Clinic Patients Followed for 6 Years: The Gothenburg-Oslo MCI Study

Background/Aims: In the quest for prevention or treatment, there is a need to find early markers for preclinical dementia. This study observed memory clinic patients with subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) and normal cognitive function at baseline. The primary aim was to address SCI as a potential risk factor for cognitive decline. The secondary aim was to address a potential relation between (1) baseline cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers and (2) a decline in memory performance over the first 2 years of follow-up, with a possible cognitive decline after 6 years. Methods: Eighty-one patients (mean age 61 years) were recruited from university memory clinics and followed up for 6 years. Results: Eighty-six percent of the cohort remained cognitively stable or improved, 9% developed mild cognitive impairment, and only 5% (n = 4) developed dementia. Regression analysis revealed that low levels of Aβ42 at baseline and memory decline during the first 2 years predicted dementia. When combined, these variables were associated with a 50% risk of developing dementia. Conclusions: Cognitive stability for 86% of the cohort suggests that SCI is predominantly a benign condition with regard to neuropathology. The low number of individuals who developed dementia limits the generalizability of the results and discussion of progression factors