Research 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.

Eligible 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.

Participants (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.

This 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.

Functional disability is a foreseeable consequence of neurodegenerative diseases affecting cognition, yet there are few validated instruments that assess functional capacity for use in pre-clinical and clinical dementia conditions. To our knowledge, the existing instruments do not comprehensively assess decision-making capacity across the numerous functional domains of daily life. We developed and evaluated the utility of an informant-report measure, the Assessment of Functional Capacity Interview (AFCI), within a sample of cognitively unimpaired and preclinical dementia groups.

Based on a comprehensive literature review, analysis of existing measures, and clinical experience, we generated >40 items consisting of open-ended questions assessing crucial aspects of daily functioning. These items were presented to 12 experts in the field of geriatrics and neuropsychology, through a graded approach (4 rounds of feedback and alterations), resulting in item modification or rejection, as well as addition of new items. The remaining items were piloted on three informants at the time of outpatient clinical evaluations, leading to further item refinement. The final version of the AFCI evaluated capacity across domains of financial affairs and management, medical affairs and healthcare management, home and personal safety, and social behaviors and community functioning. The AFCI contained 6 items per domain with response items that ranged from 0=no difficulty to 3=severe difficulty (scores ranged from 0 to 72).

Participants (N = 58; Agemean = 76; Educationmean = 16) were classified as cognitively unimpaired (CU, n = 17), subjective cognitive decline (SCD, n = 24), or mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n = 17) based on established criteria. All participants had a knowledgeable informant who completed the AFCI. We found statistically significant moderate to large correlations between the AFCI total score and an informant report measure of cognitive functioning (Brief Informant Form of Neurobehavioral Symptomatology total score), rs(42) = .73, p < .001, Test of Practical Judgment-informant total score rs(42) = .87, p < .001, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment total score rs(41) = -.34, p = .027. A Kruskal-Wallis H test revealed significant differences in AFCI total score between the three diagnostic groups, H(2) = 12.30, p = .002. Pairwise post-hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction showed a significant difference between CU and MCI (p = .001). The difference in AFCI total score between SCD and MCI was in the expected direction, but did not achieve statistical significance with correction, (p = .068). As expected, there was no statistically significant difference between CU and SCD (p =.353).

In this pilot sample (data collection is ongoing), the AFCI showed promise as a brief, clinically useful functional capacity instrument that is easily administered during a clinical interview or completed by knowledgeable informants. Results can help identify compromised decision-making in at-risk older adults to aid the prevention of common safety issues within this vulnerable population. Ongoing research will extend preliminary investigation of validity and further inform the utility of AFCI in both diagnostic and interventional contexts

Older adults, especially those above age 80, are the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States and at risk for age-related cognitive decline and dementia. There is growing evidence that cognitive activity and training may allow adults to maintain or improve cognitive functioning, but little is known about the potential benefit in the oldest old. In this randomized trial, the effectiveness of a computerized cognitive training program (CCT program) was compared to an active control games program to improve cognition in cognitively normal individuals aged 80 and older.

Sixty-nine older adults were randomized to a 24-session CCT program (n = 39) or an active control program (n = 30). Participants completed a pre- and post- training neuropsychological assessment. The primary outcome measure was a global cognitive composite, and the secondary outcomes were the scores on specific cognitive domains (of memory, executive function/attention, and language).

Using linear mixed models, there were no significant differences between the CCT and the active control program on the primary (p = 0.662) or any of the secondary outcomes (language functioning, p = .628; attention/executive functioning, p = .428; memory, p = .749).

This study suggests that short-term CCT had no specific benefit for cognitive functioning in non-demented individuals aged 80 and older.