ArticleJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS2025
Comparing the predictive validity of four MCI definitions for incident dementia in demographically diverse community-dwelling individuals: Results from the Einstein Aging Study (EAS).
Article in Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heart Rate Variability, Cognitive Performance and Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Results From the Einstein Aging Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Partially Observable Predictor Models for Identifying Cognitive Markers.Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveResearch examining (MCI) criteria in diverse and/or health-disparate populations is limited. There is a critical need to investigate the predictive validity for incident dementia of widely used MCI definitions in diverse populations.
methodEligible participants were non-Hispanic White or Black Bronx community residents, free of dementia at enrollment, with at least one annual follow-up visit after baseline. Participants completed annual neurological and neuropsychological evaluations to determine cognitive status. Dementia was defined based on DSM-IV criteria using case conferences. Cox proportional hazard models assessed predictive validity for incident dementia of four specific MCI definitions (Petersen, Jak/Bondi, number of impaired tests, Global Clinical Ratings) at baseline, controlling for age, sex, education, and race/ethnicity. Time-dependent sensitivity and specificity at 2-7 years for each definition, and Youden's index were calculated as accuracy measures.
resultsParticipants (N = 1073) ranged in age from 70 to 100 (mean = 78.4 ± 5.3) years at baseline. The sample was 62.5% female, and educational achievement averaged 13.9 ± 3.5 years. Most participants identified as White (70.0%), though Black participants were well-represented (30.0%). In general, MCI definitions differed in sensitivity and specificity for incident dementia. However, there were no significant differences in Youden's index for any definition, across all years of follow-up.
conclusionsThis work provides an important step toward improving the generalizability of the MCI diagnosis to underrepresented/health-disparate populations. While our findings suggest the studied MCI classifications are comparable, researchers and clinicians may choose to consider one method over another depending on the rationale for evaluation or question of interest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.