Identifying persons with HIV (PWH) at increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is complicated because memory deficits are common in HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) and a defining feature of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI; a precursor to AD). Recognition memory deficits may be useful in differentiating these etiologies. Therefore, neuroimaging correlates of different memory deficits (i.e., recall, recognition) and their longitudinal trajectories in PWH were examined.

We examined 92 PWH from the CHARTER Program, ages 45–68, without severe comorbid conditions, who received baseline structural MRI and baseline and longitudinal neuropsychological testing. Linear and logistic regression examined neuroanatomical correlates (i.e., cortical thickness and volumes of regions associated with HAND and/or AD) of memory performance at baseline and multilevel modeling examined neuroanatomical correlates of memory decline (average follow-up = 6.5 years).

At baseline, thinner pars opercularis cortex was associated with impaired recognition (p = 0.012; p = 0.060 after correcting for multiple comparisons). Worse delayed recall was associated with thinner pars opercularis (p = 0.001) and thinner rostral middle frontal cortex (p = 0.006) cross sectionally even after correcting for multiple comparisons. Delayed recall and recognition were not associated with medial temporal lobe (MTL), basal ganglia, or other prefrontal structures. Recognition impairment was variable over time, and there was little decline in delayed recall. Baseline MTL and prefrontal structures were not associated with delayed recall.

Episodic memory was associated with prefrontal structures, and MTL and prefrontal structures did not predict memory decline. There was relative stability in memory over time. Findings suggest that episodic memory is more related to frontal structures, rather than encroaching AD pathology, in middle-aged PWH. Additional research should clarify if recognition is useful clinically to differentiate aMCI and HAND.

The present study characterized heterogeneity in the cognitive profiles of monolingual and bilingual Latino older adults enrolled in the HABS-HD.

A total of 859 cognitively unimpaired older adults completed neuropsychological testing. Raw scores for cognitive tests were converted to z-scores adjusted for age, education, sex, and language of testing. A latent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted for monolingual and bilingual speaker groups. A series of 2–5 class solutions were examined, and the optimal model was selected based on fit indices, posterior probabilities, proportion of sample sizes, and pattern of scores. Identified classes were compared on sociodemographic, psychosocial, and health characteristics.

For the monolingual group (n = 365), a 3-class solution was optimal; this consisted of a Low Average Memory group with low average verbal memory performances on the SEVLT Total Learning and Delayed Recall trials, as well as an Average Cognition group and a High Average Cognition group. For the bilingual group (n = 494), a 3-class solution was observed to be optimal; this consisted of a Low Average Memory group, with low average verbal memory performances on the learning and delayed recall trials of Logical Memory; a Low Average Executive group, where performance on Trails A and B and Digit Substitution were the lowest; and a High Average Cognition group, where performance was generally in the high average range across most cognitive measures.

Cognitive class solutions differed across monolingual and bilingual groups and illustrate the need to better understand cognitive variability in linguistically diverse samples of Latino older adults.

The psychometric rigor of unsupervised, smartphone-based assessments and factors that impact remote protocol engagement is critical to evaluate prior to the use of such methods in clinical contexts. We evaluated the validity of a high-frequency, smartphone-based cognitive assessment protocol, including examining convergence and divergence with standard cognitive tests, and investigating factors that may impact adherence and performance (i.e., time of day and anticipated receipt of feedback vs. no feedback).

Cognitively unimpaired participants (N = 120, Mage = 68.8, 68.3% female, 87% White, Meducation = 16.5 years) completed 8 consecutive days of the Mobile Monitoring of Cognitive Change (M2C2), a mobile app-based testing platform, with brief morning, afternoon, and evening sessions. Tasks included measures of working memory, processing speed, and episodic memory. Traditional neuropsychological assessments included measures from the Preclinical Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite battery.

Findings showed overall high compliance (89.3%) across M2C2 sessions. Average compliance by time of day ranged from 90.2% for morning sessions, to 77.9% for afternoon sessions, and 84.4% for evening sessions. There was evidence of faster reaction time and among participants who expected to receive performance feedback. We observed excellent convergent and divergent validity in our comparison of M2C2 tasks and traditional neuropsychological assessments.

This study supports the validity and reliability of self-administered, high-frequency cognitive assessment via smartphones in older adults. Insights into factors affecting adherence, performance, and protocol implementation are discussed.

Among participants with Alzheimer's disease (AD) we estimated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in apathy symptom severity on three scales.

Retrospective anchor- and distribution-based analyses of change in apathy symptom scores.

Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial (ADMET) and ADMET 2 randomized controlled trials conducted at three and ten clinics specialized in dementia care in United States and Canada, respectively.

Two hundred and sixty participants (60 ADMET, 200 ADMET 2) with clinically significant apathy in Alzheimer’s disease.

The Clinical Global Impression of Change in Apathy scale was used as the anchor measure and the MCID on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Apathy (NPI-A), Dementia Apathy Interview and Rating (DAIR), and Apathy Evaluation Scale-Informant (AES-I) were estimated with linear mixed models across all study visits. The estimated thresholds were evaluated with performance metrics.

Among the MCID was a decrease of four points (95% CI: −4.0 to −4.8) on the NPI-A, 0.56 points (95% CI: −0.47 to −0.65) on the DAIR, and three points on the AES-I (95% CI: −0.9 to −5.4). Distribution-based analyses were largely consistent with the anchor-based analyses. The MCID across the three measures showed ∼60% accuracy. Sensitivity analyses found that MMSE scores and apathy severity at baseline influenced the estimated MCID.

MCIDs for apathy on three scales will help evaluate treatment efficacy at the individual level. However, the modest correspondence between MCID and clinical impression of change suggests the need to consider other scales.

We aimed to compare and link the total scores of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), two common global cognitive screeners.

2,325 memory clinic patients (63.2 ± 8.6 years; 43% female) with a variety of diagnoses, including subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia due to various etiologies completed the MMSE and MoCA concurrently. We described both screeners, including at the item level. Then, using linear regressions, we investigated how age, sex, education, and diagnosis affected total scores on both instruments. Next, in linear mixed models, we treated the two screeners as repeated measures and analyzed the influence of these characteristics on the relationship between the instruments’ total scores. Finally, we linked total scores using equipercentile equating, accounting for relevant patient characteristics.

MMSE scores (mean ± standard deviation: 25.0 ± 4.6) were higher than MoCA scores (21.2 ± 5.4), and MMSE items generally showed less variation than MoCA items. Both instruments’ scores were individually influenced by age, sex, education, and diagnosis. The relationship between the screeners was moderated by age (estimate = −0.01, 95% confidence interval = [−0.03, −0.00]), education (0.14 [0.10, 0.18]), and diagnosis. These were accounted for when producing crosswalk tables based on equipercentile equating.

Accounting for the influence of patient characteristics, we created crosswalk tables to convert MMSE scores to MoCA scores, and vice versa. These tables may facilitate collaboration between clinicians and researchers and could allow larger, pooled analyses of global cognitive functioning in older adults.

Bilingualism’s impact on cognitive assessment remains underexplored. This study analyzes the efficacy of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a screening tool for bilinguals, specifically examining the influence of language choice on balanced and unbalanced Lebanese bilinguals (Arabic-French) and its implications for diagnosing cognitive impairment.

Ninety-three bilingual healthy controls (mean age = 67.99 ± 9.3) and 29 Alzheimer’s disease patients (mean age = 77.2 ± 5.9), including 26 with mild and 3 with moderate dementia, underwent MMSE assessments in both Arabic and French. The study aimed to assess language impact on cognitive screening outcomes in different bilingual subtypes.

Sensitivity in screening for cognitive impairment using the MMSE varied based on language and bilingualism subtype. For unbalanced bilinguals, using the prominent language increased sensitivity. Conversely, in balanced bilinguals, employing the societal majority language enhanced sensitivity. This suggests that the conventional use of the non-prominent language in cognitive screening for foreigners/immigrants may result in a subtle loss of MMSE sensitivity.

This study emphasizes the critical role of language choice in cognitive assessment for bilinguals. The MMSE’s sensitivity is influenced by language selection, with clinical implications for screening procedures. Recommendations include using the prominent language for cognitive screening in dominant bilinguals and the societal majority language for balanced bilinguals. This nuanced approach aims to improve the accuracy and cultural sensitivity of cognitive screening in bilingual populations, addressing the gap in current assessment practices.