Skip to main content
. 2007 Mar;5(1):61–70. doi: 10.3121/cmr.2007.693

Table 2.

Selected studies of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Asian populations.

Reference Setting Study population MCI criteria Key findings Comments
Meguro 200472 Rural: community dwelling subjects recruited from Tajiri project in Japan N=453
Mean age=74.8
Baseline MMSE=23.8
Baseline CASI=80.6		 CDR 0.5 classified into 3 groups (UD, ID, DAT) and compared with 3 MCI subtypes (Petersen; Memory complaint free; Short term memory 1.5 SD)

  1. Widely differing prevalence rates between CDR 0.5 (30.2%) and MCI/Petersen (4.9%) groups

  2. Cognitive test performance of CDR 0.5 subjects intermediate between healthy elderly and demented groups

  1. Reliability of Japanese version of CDR previously established.

  2. CDR assessment supplemented by nurse visit to subjects’ homes to evaluate daily activities
Lee 200637 Urban: subjects attending one public health center and two memory clinics in Korea N=106
Mean age=73.1
63% female
Baseline CDR-SB=1.2		 CDR 0.5 QD

  1. At the end of 3 years, 8.3% improved; 72.7% remained stable; 19.4% progressed to AD

  2. Addition of ApoE genotype to CDR-SB or word list recall did not improve their predictive ability of AD progression

  1. Dropout rate=32%

  2. Investigators CDR certified; inter-rater agreement=100%

  3. CDR 0.5 QD not subdivided into UD versus ID groups
Wang 200676 Urban: community dwelling subjects recruited from Veterans General Hospital study in Taiwan MCI cohort
N=58
Mean age=76.3
26% female
Baseline CASI=84.1
Baseline MMSE-CE=25.9		 Two definitions:

  1. CDR 0.5 QD

  2. Petersen amnestic MCI criteria

  1. Similar conversion rates between CDR 0.5 QD and amnestic MCI groups (19.9% vs 18.2% person-year)

  2. Smaller hippocampi and lower cognitive performance at baseline predicted conversion to AD

  1. Different duration of follow up between CDR 0.5 QD (5 yr) and amnestic MCI (3 yr)

  2. CDR 0.5 QD not subdivided into UD versus ID groups
Meguro 200435 Rural: community dwelling subjects recruited from Tajiri project in Japan N=55
Mean age=74
45.4% female
Baseline CASI=78		 CDR 0.5 QD

  1. At end of 3 yr, 34.5% progressed to AD

  2. Informant report rather than self-report of memory decline differentiated CDR 0 from CDR 0.5 group

  1. Reliability of Japanese version of CDR previously established

  2. CDR assessment supplemented by nurse by nurse visit to subjects’ homes to evaluate daily activities

  3. CDR 0.5 QD not subdivided into UD versus ID groups
Lam 200675 Urban: ambulatory Chinese subjects recruited from community social centers and residential hostels in Hong Kong N=150
Mean age=78.9
Baseline CMMSE=23.3		 CDR 0.5 QD

  1. CDR 0.5 had CVFT scores intermediate between normal controls and AD

  2. Different predictors of CVFT scores in the normal control and CDR 0.5 groups

  1. Authors further divided CDR 0.5 group into 2 subgroups based on number of domains of CDR affected

  2. Single trained geriatric psychiatrist scored CDR

AD, Alzheimer disease; ApoE, Apolipoprotein E; CASI, Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument; CDR, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale; CDR-SB, CDR Sum of Boxes score; CMMSE, Chinese Mini-Mental State Examination; CVFT, Category Verbal Fluency Test; DAT, Dementia of Alzheimer type; ID, Incipient dementia; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MMSE-CE, CASI-estimated Mini-Mental State Examination; QD, Questionable dementia; UD, Uncertain dementia.