SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Association between Motor Signs and Cognitive Performance in Cognitively Unimpaired Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study Using the NACC Database.

Brain Sci · 2022-10-08

DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12101365PMID: 36291299

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Aiming to examine whether specific motor signs are associated with worse performance in specific cognitive domains among cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from the baseline evaluations of older, CU participants from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set. In total, 8149 CU (≥60 years) participants were included. Of these, 905 individuals scored ≥ 2 on at least one of the motor domains of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III (UPDRSIII). Cognitively impaired individuals, participants with psychiatric disorders and/or under treatment with antipsychotic, anxiolytic, sedative or hypnotic agents were excluded. Nine motor signs were examined: hypophonia, masked facies, resting tremor, action/postural tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia, impaired chair rise, impaired posture/gait and postural instability. Their association with performance on episodic memory, semantic memory, language, attention, processing speed or executive function was assessed using crude and adjusted linear regression models. Individuals with impaired chair rise had worse episodic memory, semantic memory, processing speed and executive function, while those with bradykinesia had worse language, processing speed and executive function. Sensitivity analyses, by excluding participants with cerebrovascular disease or PD, or other Parkinsonism, produced similar results with the exception of the relationship between bradykinesia and language performance.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.