Comparing different approaches for operationalizing subjective cognitive decline: Impact on syndromic and biomarker profiles

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundA framework for research on subjective cognitive decline (SCD) was published in 2014, but different SCD operationalization approaches still need to be compared. We compared two hypotheses‐driven and two data‐driven approaches in the same sample of individuals.MethodsNine cognitive complaints were assessed on 399 cognitively healthy individuals from a community‐based cohort. Four SCD operationalization approaches were applied and the resulting groups were characterized using multivariate methods on comprehensive demographic, clinical, cognitive, and neuroimaging data.ResultsTwo main phenotypes were identified: first, an amnestic form associated with an Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) signature pattern of brain atrophy; second, an anomic form mainly related to cerebrovascular pathology. Complaints on other language components also allowed further identifying a subgroup with subclinical impairment in cognition and activities of daily living, as well as with an AD signature pattern of atrophy.ConclusionsThe phenotype of SCD, including syndromic and biomarker profiles, varies depending on the operationalization approach. We discuss how these findings may be used in clinical practice and research.