ライフサイエンスコーパス: clinical dementia rating

1 te Examination and faster progression on the Clinical Dementia Ratings.

2 al CAMCOG, orientation and memory scores and clinical dementia ratings.

3 AD (DLB+AD n=23) and pure AD (n=89) who had Clinical Dementia Rating 0, 0.5 or 1 at their first visi

4 entia rating <1, n = 20) and presymptomatic (clinical dementia rating = 0, n = 15) stages of the dise

5 mong 207 older adults with normal cognition (Clinical Dementia Rating, 0).

6 .5; n = 69) and clinically manifest AD (AD; Clinical Dementia Rating = 1; n = 28).

7 211) as well as patients with very mild AD (Clinical Dementia Rating = .5; n = 69) and clinically ma

8 istructured assessments in order to assign a Clinical Dementia Rating and determine whether psychosis

9 period (average = 3.1 years), scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating and Global Deterioration Scale

10 followed over 6 years and assessed with the Clinical Dementia Rating and the Mini-Mental State Exami

11 There was no correlation between clinical dementia ratings and reduction of contrast sens

12 wer of attorney (96% scored 2 or less on the Clinical Dementia Rating, and 92% scored 5 or less on th

13 that ranged in AD severity from unaffected [clinical dementia rating (CDR) 0] to very mild (CDR 0.5)

14 ognitive function was investigated using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) and the Informant Questio

15 on of CSF APOE with CSF Abeta(42) levels and clinical dementia rating (CDR) is not because of a rever

16 A total of 107 cases with a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) of > or = 1 met criteria

17 sed morphometry for image postprocessing and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale for cognitive asses

18 We studied 20 individuals who at death had a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score of 0 (cognitively n

19 Twenty-seven patients had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0.5 (very mild d

20 In 109 subjects, the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score was highly correlat

21 In this study clinical dementia rating (CDR) scores were used as a mea

22 cognitive status had been assessed with the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), including 39 nondemented

23 d CR1 expression levels were associated with clinical dementia rating (CDR), with higher expression b

24 part of a cohort study, cognitively normal (Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] of 0) middle-aged researc

25 rticipants who were cognitively normal (CN) (Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] score, 0) or had AD demen

26 from patients with autopsy-confirmed AD and clinical dementia ratings (CDRs) before death.

27 i-Mental State Examination scores and higher Clinical Dementia Ratings compared to amyloid-beta negat

28 d in a group of 10 mildly affected patients (clinical dementia rating equal to 0) using voxel-based m

29 Two global measures, the FTLD-modified Clinical Dementia Rating (FTLD-modified CDR) and the Cli

30 The main outcome measures were the Clinical Dementia Rating, Global Deterioration Scale for

31 Symptomatic individuals (Clinical Dementia Rating > 0) demonstrated markedly incr

32 arriers and non-carriers in the preclinical (clinical dementia rating <1, n = 20) and presymptomatic

33 ily living, or severe dementia (defined as a Clinical Dementia Rating of 3).

34 e more likely to receive lower scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating (P = .003).

35 The patients with AD had clinical dementia ratings ranging from 0.5 to 3, corresp

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

37 gnition) and a positive association with the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (a global functional asse

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

39 e 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR).

40 tis Dementia Rating Scale-2 (DRS-2), and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR).

41 gender, increased serum ACT correlated with Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (p = 0.0041) or Mattis De

42 tudy included 468 healthy older individuals (Clinical Dementia Rating scale [CDR] global scores of 0,

43 assessed annually for up to 4 years with the Clinical Dementia Rating scale and a battery of neuropsy

44 d 133 clinically healthy older participants (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale global scores of 0) parti

45 other dementing disorders, the mean (+/-SD) Clinical Dementia Rating Scale score was 2.21 (+/-1.14),

46 The higher Clinical Dementia Rating Scale scores lacked correlation

47 Clinical Dementia Rating scale scores were significantly

48 er education level was associated with lower Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (beta = -0.1

49 neuritic plaques were associated with higher Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (beta = 1.64

50 med with neuropsychological measures and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes (CDRsb).

51 0% improvement in slope in rate of change of Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes has 89% powe

52 n several standard clinical instruments: the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes, a verbal me

53 e on Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes, Logical Mem

54 nation (range, 0-30, with 30 being best) and Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum-of-boxes scale (range

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

56 Secondary outcome measures included the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum-of-boxes, the Neurops

57 AS-Cog score, 1-step worsening on the global Clinical Dementia Rating scale, 15-point decline on the

58 ed at baseline and every 15 months using the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, a neurological evaluatio

59 P < 0.01) and greater worsening over time in Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, sum of boxes (P = 0.02).

60 by the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, was detected 5 years bef

61 Neuropsychological evaluation, including the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, was performed.

62 icant differences, with the exception of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, which suggested worsenin

63 unction of dementia severity measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale.

64 subjects for dementia severity by using the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale.

65 f these cases was also done by employing the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale.

66 the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clinical Dementia Rating scale.

67 easured by Mini-Mental State Examination and Clinical Dementia Rating scales.

68 of TS1 was significantly correlated with the Clinical Dementia Rating score (rho = 0.75, p = 2.2 x 10

69 ed States and Canada (91 participants with a Clinical Dementia Rating score of 0 and 150 individuals

70 rmal participants who progress from a global Clinical Dementia Rating score of 0 are significantly wo

71 al participants who are stable with a global Clinical Dementia Rating score of 0 at months 12, 24, an

72 Rating score of 0 and 150 individuals with a Clinical Dementia Rating score of 0.5).

73 ctivities, a comorbidity index, and baseline Clinical Dementia Rating score.

74 related to dementia state as measured by the clinical dementia rating score.

75 isease Rating Scale Part III (UPDRS-III) and Clinical Dementia Rating scores and neuropsychological p

76 pe of Alzheimer disease accurately predicted clinical dementia rating scores in the other, further de

77 e in functional connectivity with increasing Clinical Dementia Rating scores were similar for both LO

78 onships between advancing dementia severity (Clinical Dementia Rating scores) and FMD and nitroglycer

79 with the progression of AD, as reflected by Clinical Dementia Rating scores.

80 and PSP were matched for severity using the clinical dementia rating sum of boxes (CDR-sb) scores.

81 es of daily living scale (ADCS-ADL), and the clinical dementia rating sum of boxes (CDR-sb).

82 ation (MMSE; 0 [worst] to 30 [best] points), Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-Sum of Boxes;

83 APOE alleles on AD pathology and cognition (Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes and Mini-Mental St

84 totemporal dementia that had multiple serial Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes assessments (mean

85 The results showed the contributions of age, Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes composite test sco

86 ate of functional decline as measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scale.

87 se variables were associated with the actual Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes score estimated fo

88 in controls and rates of cognitive decline (Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes score: beta estima

89 th greater clinical impairment, based on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes, recruited a large

90 clinical progression was assessed using the Clinical Dementia Rating (Sum of Boxes).

91 by a slowing of clinical decline measured by Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes and Mini Mental St

92 ni-Mental State Examination items, and all 6 Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes items.

93 ion of dementia (median annualized change in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes score, mutation ca