ライフサイエンスコーパス: dementia rating scale

1 Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clinical Dementia Rating scale.

2 f dementia severity measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale.

3 up assessments were obtained with the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale.

4 for dementia severity by using the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale.

5 alidated proxy measure, the Modified Blessed Dementia Rating Scale.

6 sychopathology rating scales, and the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale.

7 ases was also done by employing the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale.

8 ted a neuropsychological battery or clinical dementia rating scale.

9 al abilities were examined with the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale.

10 al impairments as assessed with the clinical dementia rating scale.

11 Mini-Mental State Examination and the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale.

12 y Mini-Mental State Examination and Clinical Dementia Rating scales.

13 ap was correlated with changes in the Mattis dementia rating scale 1 year after lead implantation (r

14 ore, 1-step worsening on the global Clinical Dementia Rating scale, 15-point decline on the ADCS acti

15 gnitive status was evaluated with the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 (DRS) at baseline and on annual

16 -Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 (DRS-2), and the Clinical Dement

17 to additional cognitive instruments (Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 [DRS-2] and Montreal Cognitive A

18 ted subjects were assessed annually with the Dementia Rating Scale-2 for two additional years.

19 Rating Scale-2, and new robust and expanded Dementia Rating Scale-2 norms were applied to cognitivel

20 onance imaging brain scans and completed the Dementia Rating Scale-2, and new robust and expanded Dem

21 nce of deficits demonstrated on the Clinical Dementia Rating scale (45% vs 19%; P = .12).

22 and a positive association with the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (a global functional assessment).

23 e was a negative association with the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (a global measure of cognition) an

24 eline and every 15 months using the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, a neurological evaluation, and ne

25 nalysis of covariance adjusting for baseline Dementia Rating Scale, age, gender, magnetic resonance f

26 annually for up to 4 years with the Clinical Dementia Rating scale and a battery of neuropsychologica

27 rogate interviews using the Modified Blessed Dementia Rating Scale and a review of medical records.

28 The Dementia Rating Scale and Frontal Assessment Battery wer

29 , Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration-Clinical Dementia Rating scale and MRI.

30 rders were administered the UPSA, the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, and standardized measures of psyc

31 -Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, and the Executive Interview.

32 tiation/perseveration subscore of the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, and the latency of the P300 audit

33 Patients were assessed by the Clinical Dementia Rating scale (CDR) to have no dementia or quest

34 Geriatric Depression Scale and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR).

35 tia Rating Scale-2 (DRS-2), and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR).

36 f change in the sum of boxes of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR-SB) score (range, 0-18; highe

37 uded 468 healthy older individuals (Clinical Dementia Rating scale [CDR] global scores of 0, above cu

38 ysfunction and memory were assessed with the Dementia Rating Scale, disability and social support wer

39 rment at baseline, performance on the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale domains of conceptualization and i

40 tioning (Mini-Mental State Exam and Clinical Dementia Rating Scale), emotional/behaviour symptoms as

41 nically healthy older participants (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale global scores of 0) participating

42 Primary outcome was the Clinical Dementia Rating scale-global score (CDR-global).

43 For the Dementia Rating Scale impairment was observed in approxi

44 ints, a measure of functional mobility and a dementia rating-scale, improvements were seen that are c

45 tionship of age to performance on the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale in 116 outpatients with schizophre

46 ender, magnetic resonance field strength and Dementia Rating Scale interval.

47 with total and subscale scores on the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, level of independence in the comm

48 ubscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 24 and the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS) at week 76, using intention

49 ment at 12 months, as measured by the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS).

50 obal cognition was assessed using the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS).

51 Lower scores on the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale memory subscale and more severe ne

52 State Examination and had a global Clinical Dementia Rating scale of 0.5, with a required memory box

53 Dementia Rating Scale (p = 0.0041) or Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (p = 0.0031) scores.

54 increased serum ACT correlated with Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (p = 0.0041) or Mattis Dementia Ra

55 approximately 0.24 worse performance on the Dementia Rating Scale (p<0.001) and 0.26 worse performan

56 line in phonemic verbal fluency and Clinical Dementia Rating scale plus FTD modules.

57 provement, stable or reliable decline) using Dementia Rating Scale reliable change indices determined

58 DEMQOL); cognition and functioning (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale; S-MMSE); capability (ICECAP-O); s

59 n Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration-Clinical Dementia Rating scale score (b=-3.46 [SE 46.3]; p=0.941)

60 rebrospinal fluid correlated with the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale score (Pearson r = 0.50; P = .03)

61 nation score of 17 or less, baseline Blessed Dementia Rating Scale score of 5.0 or greater, presence

62 menting disorders, the mean (+/-SD) Clinical Dementia Rating Scale score was 2.21 (+/-1.14), with 43

63 ients of differing dementia severity (Mattis Dementia Rating Scale score, 23-128) and in 14 age-match

64 Mini-Mental State Examination score, Blessed Dementia Rating Scale score, duration since reported ons

65 disease patients with a wide range of Mattis Dementia Rating Scale scores (23-128).

66 waves were negatively correlated with Mattis Dementia Rating Scale scores for initiation/perseveratio

67 The higher Clinical Dementia Rating Scale scores lacked correlation with neu

68 Dementia Rating Scale scores were lower in the schizophr

69 Clinical Dementia Rating scale scores were significantly related

70 cognitive profiles of the two groups on the Dementia Rating Scale subscales were identical, with the

71 ion level was associated with lower Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (beta = -0.19; P < .0

72 plaques were associated with higher Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (beta = 1.64; P < .00

73 neuropsychological measures and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes (CDRsb).

74 ement in slope in rate of change of Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes has 89% power when al

75 ni-mental state examination and the clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes scores.

76 standard clinical instruments: the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes, a verbal memory test

77 tein Mini-Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes, Logical Memory Immed

78 ange, 0-30, with 30 being best) and Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum-of-boxes scale (range, 0-18, w

79 t as measured with the MMSE and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum-of-boxes score.

80 ndary outcome measures included the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum-of-boxes, the Neuropsychiatric

81 and greater worsening over time in Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, sum of boxes (P = 0.02).

82 from baseline to post-treatment in Clinical Dementia Rating scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and AD Asses

83 ncluded the change in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), the 13-item

84 ine to week 104 in the score on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB; scores range

85 cale-Cognitive Subscale [ADAS-Cog], Clinical Dementia Rating scale-sum of boxes [CDR-SB], and Mini-Me

86 esented a stable performance of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes score, whereas patien

87 The Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes was selected as the p

88 stimated years to symptom onset and Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes.

89 bjects on the MMSE (N=8, 44%) and the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale total (N=10, 56%).

90 tiation-perseveration subscale of the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, Trail Making tests A and B, and D

91 Longitudinally, decline in the Clinician's Dementia Rating scale was correlated with decline in mag

92 ni-Mental State Examination and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, was detected 5 years before expec

93 hological evaluation, including the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, was performed.

94 ferences, with the exception of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, which suggested worsening among p