| Title |
Differential effects of a computerized cognitive stimulation program on older adults with mild cognitive impairment according to the severity of white matter hyperintensities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s152225 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leila Djabelkhir-Jemmi, Ya-Huei Wu, Marouane Boubaya, Fabienne Marlats, Manon Lewis, Jean-Sébastien Vidal, Hermine Lenoir, Benoit Charlieux, Baptiste Isabet, Anne-Sophie Rigaud |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to explore whether a computerized cognitive stimulation program (CCS) induced differential effects in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) according to the severity of white matter hyperintensities (WMH), which are associated with cognitive impairment and increased risk of progression to Alzheimer's disease because of the damage they cause to cortical and subcortical networks. Twenty-nine MCI patients with no or little WMH (MCI-non-WMH) and 22 MCI patients with moderate or severe WMH (MCI-WMH) attended a 24-session CCS program (two sessions per week for a duration of 3 months) focused on executive functions, attention, and processing speed. Cognitive and psychosocial assessments were performed at baseline, postintervention, and 3 months after the intervention. Both groups improved on several cognitive measures after the intervention. However, the MCI-non-WMH group improved on a higher number of cognitive measures than the MCI-WMH group. At postintervention assessment, CCS had a more beneficial effect on the MCI-non-WMH group than on the MCI-WMH group with regard to improving categorical fluency (4.6±6.8 vs 0.4±6.4; effect size=0.37; p=0.002). During the 3-month follow-up assessment, significantly higher score improvements were observed in the MCI-non-WMH group for the paired-associate learning test (6.4±3 vs 4.7±3.5 points; effect size=0.43; p=0.005) as well as categorical fluency (3.8±7.8 vs -0.7±6 points; effect size=0.55; p=0.0003). These findings suggest that WMH severity was related to cognitive improvement induced by a CCS program and highlight the importance of considering WMH in interventional studies on subjects with MCI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 32 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,255
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,369
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#29
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.