Next Article in Journal
Prevalence and Risk Factors of Poor Sleep Quality in Collegiate Athletes during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Nitric-Oxide-Inducing Factors on Vitamin D Changes in Older People Susceptible to Suffer from Sarcopenia
Previous Article in Journal
Global Climate Change and Human Dirofilariasis in Russia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Orientation Experiences and Navigation Aid Use: A Self-Report Lifespan Study on the Role of Age and Visuospatial Factors
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Prevalence of Amnestic and Non-Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Its Association with Different Lifestyle Factors in a South Italian Elderly Population

1
Department of Educational Sciences, Psychology, Communication, University of Studies of Bari, 70122 Bari, Italy
2
Law Department, “Giustino Fortunato” University of Benevento, 82100 Benevento, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(5), 3097; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053097
Submission received: 10 January 2022 / Revised: 28 February 2022 / Accepted: 4 March 2022 / Published: 6 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Healthy and Active Ageing)

Abstract

:
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a transition stage between normal aging and dementia and can be useful to monitor the cognitive status of people at risk of dementias. Our aims were to investigate the prevalence of amnestic and non-amnestic MCI in a South Italian elderly population, and to identify socio-demographic, clinical and lifestyle factors associated with MCI. A cross-sectional retrospective population study on 839 community-dwelling participants over 60 years of age was carried out. Elderly people were administered a brief neuropsychological screening to identify their cognitive and functional status, and a questionnaire to investigate several socio-demographic, clinical, and lifestyle factors. Prevalence estimate for MCI was 12.0% (95% CI: 10.0–14.5%), for amnestic MCI was 7.4% (95% CI: 5.8–9.4%), and for non-amnestic MCI was 4.6% (95% CI: 3.4–6.4%), for people older than 60 years of age. Logistic regression models, corrected for age, sex, and education, revealed a significant association of MCI with the following factors: age, education, intellectual activities, and topographical disorientation. On the other hand, education, clinical factors (e.g., depression level and perceived physical pain), lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking, alcohol, and leisure/productive activities), dietary habits, quality of life, and self-reported topographical disorientation were non-significantly associated with MCI. Prevalence estimates and the association of MCI and its subtypes with risk and protective factors were discussed in comparison with the most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

1. Introduction

Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is known as a transitional stage between normal aging and dementia. It has been defined as a condition of objective cognitive impairment with no dementia. MCI involves the onset and evolution of cognitive impairments beyond those expected based on an individual’s age and education, but which are not significant enough to interfere with her or his daily activities [1,2,3]. Following Petersen’s MCI classification, it is possible to distinguish four subtypes, amnestic MCI single domain ((aMCIsd); memory impaired only), amnestic MCI multiple domain ((aMCImd) memory impaired plus one or more other cognitive domains), nonamnestic MCI single domain ((naMCIsd); impairment in one nonmemory domain), and nonamnestic MCI multiple domain ((naMCImd); impairment in two or more nonmemory domains) [1,2]. These subtypes show differences in clinical outcomes. Both aMCIsd and aMCImd conditions are more likely to convert to Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with remarkable differences in progression rates among them. Non-aMCI conditions are instead more likely to convert in other types of dementia, such as vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, or dementia with Lewy body [4].
Several studies investigated prevalence of MCI all over the world. Mitchell and Shiri-Feshki [4] found that MCI cases ranged from 2% to 30% in a normal population and from 6% to 85% (with an average value of 40%) in a clinical setting. Ward and colleagues [5] reported a prevalence of MCI between 3% and 42% with a median value of 26.4% and a prevalence of aMCI between 0.5% and 31.9% with a median value of 4.9%. Alexander and colleagues [6] found that estimates of prevalence for European populations were comprised between 2.5% and 14.9% for MCI, and between 4.9% and 8.7% for aMCI. Hu and colleagues [7] found a higher MCI prevalence in studies conducted in the community (25%, 95% CI: 18–33%) with respect to those conducted in clinical contexts (20%, 95% CI: 14–25%). This result is not surprising, since, as authors state, clinical samples are more likely to meet criteria for advanced disease states than participants from the community. In confirmation of this, the dementia rate (DR) and Alzheimer’s disease rate (AR) were found to be higher in the clinical sample (DR: 39%, 95% CI: 31–47%; AR: 35%, 95% CI: 27–43%) than in the community (DR: 25%, 95% CI: 17–32%; AR: 19%, 95% CI: 14–24%). More recently, Pessoa and colleagues [8] reported an MCI prevalence ranging from 0.5% to 41.8% with a pooled estimate equal to 17.3% (95% CI: 13.8–20.8%), and Parnetti and colleagues [9] found an estimate of preclinical AD equal to 22% (95% CI: 18–26%). Subsequent updates on estimates for the Chinese elderly population [10] reported a differentiated MCI estimates based on age group, as follows: 8% (95% CI: 6–10.1%) in individuals 60–69 years of age, 13.1% (95% CI: 10.6–15.6%) in individuals 70–79 years of age, and 23.4% (95% CI: 18.3–28.6%) when 80 years of age or older. This systematic review revealed a MCI prevalence on the general elderly population equal to 14% (95% CI: 12–17%). Similarly, a meta-analysis [11] on MCI prevalence on the Chinese population 55 years of age or older indicated estimates ranging from 14.8% (95% CI: 12.2–17.6%) to 21.2% (95% CI: 17.5–25.2%) depending on the different diagnostic criteria used. In reference to the same population, Lu et al. [12] reported a MCI prevalence of 12.2% (95% CI: 10.6–14.2%), also specifying a aMCI prevalence of 10.9% (95% CI: 7.7–15.4%). A wide range of MCI prevalence can be also found in a meta-analysis on derived data from nine countries, i.e., Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Costa Rica [13]; the pooled prevalence of all-type MCI across the included studies revealed a prevalence of 14.95% (95% CI: 6.81–25.52%) and a prevalence of aMCI estimated of 6.30% (95% CI: 3.09–10.54%). However, a wide gap among estimates can be observed by stratifying by age and education (i.e., prevalence ranging from 6.8% to 25.5% and between 3.1% and 10.5%, for MCI and aMCI, respectively).
Prevalence studies were conducted also in the Italian elderly population. Ten studies have been recognized, showing a degree of variability similar to that found in the aforementioned systematic reviews [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Indeed, MCI prevalence estimates varied from 3.2% [15] to 24.5% [20] with a median value equal to 6.1%. Most of such studies were conducted in Northern Italy and few studies used a multicenter sample. To the best of our knowledge, no study has been conducted exclusively in Southern Italy. Moreover, few studies investigated the prevalence of MCI subtypes, at least regarding the presence of memory impairment (aMCI and naMCI) [16,18,19,20,22].
Several studies also investigated the association between cognitive decline and dementia and a series of protective and risk factors. Recent systematic reviews [24,25,26,27] highlighted the role of these modifiable predictors in order to reduce MCI and dementia outcomes. A non-exhaustive list of potential modifiable predictors includes the following factors: years of formal education, physical activity, Mediterranean diet, cognitive training, moderate alcohol consumption, social engagement, traumatic brain injury, mid-life obesity, metabolic syndrome, current smoking, caffeine, fatty acids, diabetes, history of depression, sleep disturbances, and hyperlipidemia.
Another factor which is of interest in MCI as well as in an established condition of dementia is topographical disorientation (TD), which is defined by the seminal work by Aguirre and D’Esposito [28] as a particular condition which determines the loss of spatial orientation and is characterized by the difficulty in acquiring spatial information in new and unknown environments, and in encompassing familiar environments such as one’s neighborhoods or one’s house. TD and spatial memory impairments occur relatively early as an effect of cognitive decline in aging, and it is possible to observe transient episodes of TD, other than in people suffering from dementia, especially of Alzheimer’s type, even in prodromal stages of dementia, namely MCI [29]. Following Aguirre and D’Esposito taxonomy, TD is not a unitary concept, but it is possible to split it into four components: egocentric disorientation, heading/allocentric disorientation, landmark agnosia, and anterograde disorientation. Recent literature showed that familiarity with the environment might represent a protective factor from spatial memory impairment in non-pathological cognitive aging, in particular for allocentric tasks. Indeed, information consolidated across a huge number of retrieval episodes seems to be solidly preserved in elderly people, making them to obtain a performance comparable with that of younger people [30,31,32].
The aims of the present study are (a) to investigate the prevalence of participants with MCI and its subtypes, namely amnestic and non-amnestic MCI, in a South Italian elderly population, (b) to identify socio-demographic, clinical and lifestyle protective and risk factors associated with MCI and its subtypes.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Nine hundred eighty-six elderly people from the metropolitan area of Bari, Italy, were contacted and invited to participate in the study. All of them were volunteers recruited from senior centers and third age universities with the support of a proxy informant, generally undergraduate or graduate students, trainees, employers of the centers and general practitioners. They were consecutively contacted and eventually enrolled between October 2016 and May 2018. Inclusion criteria for study participation were: (a) higher than 60 years of age (b) being native Italian speaker, (c) residence in a region of Southern Italy (i.e., Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Molise, Apulia, Sicily, and Sardinia), (d) having normal or corrected-to-normal vision, (e) not having a history of suspected uncompensated systemic/traumatic/psychiatric diseases, or with severe vision/hearing loss, which can affect cognition. Eighty-four elderly people refused to take part in the study. Nine hundred and two accepted to participate. Following the administration of the anamnestic and neuropsychological part of the protocol (see paragraph Materials and Procedure for details), sixty-three participants were excluded since they had uncompensated systemic diseases (n = 12), major depression (n = 15), severe hearing/vision loss (n = 9), or probable dementia (n = 27). Eight hundred thirty-nine participants (467 women) were included in the final sample. Figure 1 shows the enrollment process. All participants were blinded to the hypothesis of the study and signed a consent form for participating. The Ethical Committee of the Institution approved the study protocol and the whole study was performed following Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

2.2. Materials and Procedure

Elderly participants were administered (a) a general anamnesis, carried out by supervised trainees in psychogeriatric care assessment, in order to exclude people with a history of suspected uncompensated systemic/traumatic/psychiatric diseases, or with severe vision/hearing loss, which can affect cognition, and (b) a standardized neuropsychological battery, in order to establish a diagnosis of probable MCI and its subtypes (amnestic and non-amnestic MCI), according to the MCI working group of the European Consortium on AD [33]. In particular, the neuropsychological assessment consisted of the following validated tests and scales:
(i)
Global cognitive function was evaluated by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) [34], which recently demonstrated to predict the preservation of daily functional activities, such as driving, in older people [35]. This test showed good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.83) [34] while the best cut-off used in an Italian sample for discriminating participants with probable cognitive impairment was demonstrated elsewhere and it was 17 [34];
(ii)
A possible occurrence of functional decline, usually associated with a severe cognitive impairment and with dementia was evaluated by the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) [36]. Both these scales demonstrated moderate to good interclass correlation coefficients (i.e., r = 0.70–0.91) [37,38];
(iii)
The 15-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) [39], which is a reliable (Cronbach’s α = 0.91) [40] measure of depression in older people, was administered in order to exclude major depressive symptoms. In this scale, scores less than 5 are considered normal, scores between 5 and 11 suggest mild/moderate depression, and scores between 12 and 15 indicate severe depression [41];
(iv)
Subjective complaints regarding memory loss, which demonstrate to be associated to age-related frailty conditions such as falls, low mood, and impaired executive abilities [42,43], were evaluated by the Subjective Memory Complaints questionnaire (SMCq) [44]. The questionnaire demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) [44]) and adequate screening accuracy for MCI, dementia, and cognitive disorders (i.e., range: 60.1–94.6%) [45];
(v)
Verbal episodic memory was evaluated by the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test [46], with both immediate (cut-off: 28.53; [47] and delayed recall (cut-off: 4.69; [47]) which showed ana alpha reliability equal to 0.84;
(vi)
Executive function was evaluated by the Frontal assessment Battery (FAB) [48] and the Clock Drawing Test (CDT) [49], by considering 13.5 and 6.55 as cut-off scores, respectively [50]. The FAB showed good values of inter-rater reliability (r = 0.96), test-retest reliability (r = 0.85), and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.73) [51]. The CDT showed an interclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.84 to 0.93 depending by the scoring method [52].
Moreover, each participant was administered an ad-hoc protocol including either single-item questions or validated scales in order to gather information and/or measure the following socio-demographic, clinical, and lifestyle factors: age, sex, education, depression level, familiarity with AD, traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), perceived physical pain, smoking, alcohol, waist-hip ratio (WHR), body mass index (BMI), second language, physical activities, cultural activities, intellectual activities, productive activities, social activities, quality of life, physical health, mental health, sleep quality, topographical disorientation self-report [53], recent newly learned spatial information in an egocentric and allocentric format [30,54], food group 1 (carbohydrates), food group 2 (cured and smoked meats), food group 3 (white meat), food group 4 (red meat), food group 5 (milk), food group 6 (dairy products and cheeses), food group 7 (eggs), food group 8 (fish meat), food group 9 (raw and cooked vegetables with leaves), food group 10 (vegetables and legumes), food group 11 (fruit), water daily consumption, carbonated drinks daily consumption, beer daily consumption, and wine daily consumption. All of the factors were based on a self-report measure, except for the Ego-Allo task (EAT) [54], which was composed of two subtasks, and was to assess egocentric and allocentric spatial memory based on recent and newly learned spatial information, in a table-top format. Participants were instructed to memorize the position and the characteristics of three three-dimensional solids (shape and color). In the testing phase solids were presented on the table, in order to judge distances between them and the observer (egocentric judgment), or between the solids themselves (allocentric judgment). The maximum total score was 8 points for egocentric and 8 points for allocentric judgment, respectively. Table 1 reports the socio-demographic, clinical and lifestyle factors investigated and their related measure.
The entire procedure was made clear to the participants beforehand. Participants were assessed individually in a well-lit and quiet room without disturbances. Data were collected in one session. The whole assessment lasted a maximum of 2 h. The order of the tasks was the same mentioned in the text. Breaks were allowed upon request.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using R 3.5.1 statistical software [55]. We obtained demographic data (sex, age, and years of education) and scores on neuropsychological, clinical and lifestyle measures. Normality of distribution was assessed for all considered variables. Following a series of Shapiro–Wilk tests, all variables significantly deviated from normality, with at least p < 0.01. Since such test is biased for large sample size, skewness and kurtosis indexes were also calculated. Except for ADL, IADL, RAVLT delayed recall, and WHR, skewness and kurtosis did not exceed the critical threshold [56]. A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, taking into account the following parameters: the initial alpha level (0.05), the number of tests (39), the mean correlation between predictors (0.21). Following such procedure, a one-tailed value of p < 0.012 was determined to be statistically significant. Pearson’s chi-squared analysis was performed to assess for differences in the distribution of sex among the four groups. A series of univariate analysis of variance (ANOVAs) were carried out to compare means from the three diagnostic groups for demographic continuous data, and scores on neuropsychological tests used to establish a diagnosis of probable MCI and its subtypes. The significant ANOVAs were further explored using post hoc Tukey HSD for unequal N. This test is a generalization of the Tukey’s test to the case of unequal sample sizes.
Prevalence estimates were calculated as the number of elderly people with MCI divided by the number of elderly people included in the final sample. Confidence intervals were calculated using the formula of confidence intervals for sample proportions.
A series of logistic regressions were performed in order to estimate the probability, expressed in terms of odds ratio, of having a diagnosis of cognitive impairment following to the presence of one factor. A second series of logistic regressions were performed in order to avoid confounding effects by analyzing the association of each factor considered and age, sex, and education level.

3. Results

Means, standard deviations, frequencies, F or χ2 values, P levels for statistics for demographic variables, for functional and neuropsychological tests, as well as Tukey HSD for unequal N post hoc tests are reported in Table 2. Means, standard deviations, frequencies, F or χ2 values, P levels for statistics for all the predictors included in the logistic regression models, as well as Tukey HSD for unequal N post hoc tests are reported in Supplementary Materials (Table S1). Correlations between the employed variables were also analyzed. Age was found negatively correlated with education, perceived physical pain, activities (physical, social, cultural, productive), both physical and mental health, and the performance on the EAT. Significant and positive associations were found between depression, age, and topographical disorientation measures, as well as between education and second language, physical, cultural, intellectual activities, egocentric, allocentric and total score at the EAT. The male sex was significantly and positively associated with smoking, alcohol consumption, and WHR. Despite this, the male sex was associated with higher self-reported physical and mental health. Moreover, the perceived physical pain showed to be positively associated with alcohol consumption, WHR, and second language, and negatively with self-reported topographical disorientation. Finally, the physical activity positively correlated with both physical and mental health, and with the egocentric, allocentric, and the total score at the EAT.
Seven hundred and thirty-eight participants (403 women) were classified as healthy elderly (HE), and 101 (64 women) as participants with probable Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI): the latter group was further classified as participants with probable amnestic MCI ((aMCI) 62 persons, 39 women) and with probable non amnestic MCI ((naMCI) 39 persons, 25 women). The mean scores of neuropsychological measures for each group were compatible with Italian normative data. HE were significantly younger and had significantly lower scores at SMCq than aMCI and naMCI, which in turn did not differ between them. Moreover, HE were significantly more educated and had significantly higher scores at MoCA than aMCI and naMCI, which in turn did not differ between them. The aMCI group obtained significantly lower scores at the RAVLT immediate and delayed recall than HE and naMCI, which in turn did not differ between them. The naMCI group had significantly lower scores at FAB and CDT compared with aMCI and HE, which in turn did not differ between them. Finally, there were no differences between the three groups for sex distribution, ADL, IADL, and GDS scores.
Prevalence estimate for MCI was 12.0% (95% CI: 10.0, 14.5%). Prevalence estimate for aMCI was 7.4% (95% CI: 5.8, 9.4%), and for naMCI was 4.6% (95% CI: 3.4, 6.4%).
The first series of logistic regressions revealed significant associations between the group of MCI participants and the following factors (see Table 3): age (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.11, p < 0.001), education (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.89, p < 0.001), perceived physical pain (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.59, p < 0.01), physical (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.93, p < 0.01), cultural (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.89, p < 0.01), intellectual (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.84, p < 0.001), quality of life related to physical health (OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.85, 0.97, p < 0.01), egocentric (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.32, p < 0.001) and allocentric (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.32, p < 0.01) components of topographical disorientation, and the total score of topographical disorientation (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.20, p < 0.001). After correcting for age, sex, and education, significant associations were found for intellectual activities (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.93, p < 0.01), egocentric components of topographical disorientation (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.29, p < 0.01), and the total score of topographical disorientation (OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.17, p < 0.01).
Logistic regressions conducted with the group of aMCI showed a significant association with the following factors (see Table 4): age (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.13, p < 0.001), education (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.89, p < 0.001), physical (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.59, 0.91, p < 0.01), and intellectual (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.83, p < 0.001) activities, quality of life related to physical health (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.98, p < 0.01), egocentric (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.48, p < 0.001), and allocentric (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.47, p < 0.001) components of topographical disorientation, as well as the total score of topographical disorientation (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.90, p < 0.001). After correcting for age, sex, and education, significant associations were found for intellectual activities (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.93, p < 0.001), egocentric (OR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.48, p < 0.001) and allocentric (OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.42, p < 0.001) components of topographical disorientation, and the total score of topographical disorientation (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.27, p < 0.001).
Logistic regressions conducted with the group of naMCI showed a significant association with the following factors (see Table 5): education (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.94, p < 0.01) and intellectual activities (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.94, p < 0.01). After correcting for age, sex, and education, no significant associations were found.

4. Discussion

The present study investigated the prevalence of MCI and its subtypes (i.e., amnestic, and non-amnestic MCI) in a South Italian elderly population, as well as the association of those groups with several socio-demographic, clinical and lifestyle factors.
Prevalence estimates seem to be in line with those obtained by previous studies conducted on Italian elderly population. Ten studies investigated prevalence of MCI in the Italian elderly population [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Although estimates showed a great variability, ranging from 3.2% to 24.5%, they had an average value of 10.7%. Four studies [16,19,20,21] were conducted in Northern Italy, and showed an average value of 12.0%, with a range from 5.0% to 24.5%. Five studies [15,17,18,22,23] were multicenter, and showed an average value of 9.8%, with a range from 3.2% to 21.6%. One study was conducted in Center Italy and found a prevalence estimate of 6.1%. One study [57] investigated the prevalence of aMCI in the Italian population, and found a value of 4.9%, slightly lower than that obtained in the present study. Several socio-demographic and socio-economic factors, as well as design and methodological issues, might explain the great variability in studies conducted in the same country, and further studies are warranted in order reach a consensus about a reliable estimate of prevalence.
Protective factors associated with MCI and with aMCI were education and intellectual activities. The only significant protective factor associated with naMCI was education.
Regarding education, our results are in line with systematic reviews which found a significant association between education and cognitive decline and dementia [24,58,59]: the more educated an individual is, the less likelihood an individual has of developing cognitive decline and dementia. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis [60] registered a risk reduction of 8% for AD and 7% for all-type dementia for each year of education. This result can be read in the frame of cognitive reserve hypothesis [61,62], which postulates that cognitive reserve reduces the prevalence and incidence of AD or vascular dementia (VaD). Among those who have greater initial cognitive reserve (in contrast to those with less reserve) greater brain pathology occurs before the clinical symptoms of disease becomes manifest. Thus, clinical disease onset triggers a faster decline in cognition and function, and increased mortality among those with initial greater cognitive reserve [60].
Also, regarding intellectual activities, results of the present investigation seem to converge with those found for people with dementia in a systematic review [63], which showed robust evidence that complex patterns of mental activity in the early-, mid-, and late-life stages were associated with a significant reduction in dementia incidence. In this case, the hypothesis of cognitive and behavioral brain reserve might explain the association, as complex intellectual and mental activities across the lifespan allow flexible cognitive repertoires to be deployed in the face of underlying neural dysfunction [62].
Risk factors associated with MCI were age and topographical disorientation, referred to the egocentric component and to the total score of the test employed. The risk factor associated with aMCI were age and topographical disorientation, referred to both egocentric and allocentric components and to the total score of the test employed. No significant risk factors emerged for the group of naMCI.
Age is obviously known as the first risk factor associated with MCI and dementia, the higher the age the higher the risk of developing cognitive decline due to neurodegenerative processes [3].
Regarding topographical disorientation, it was found to be significant for both MCI and aMCI, but not for naMCI. It is noteworthy that the association was present only with the objective measures of topographical disorientation. This result is consistent with studies which documented the frequency of TD in both AD and MCI. For example, Pai and Jacobs [64] found that 61 of the 112 patients with AD residing in a community in Southern Taiwan presented with TD over the course of the study, 28 had TD at a very early stage of the disease, and 33 developed TD within the next 3 years. Those findings were consistent with those of Hort and colleagues [65] documenting the presence of spatial navigation disorders in amnestic MCI patients (aMCI). The Authors used a human analogue of the Morris water maze task to study egocentric and allocentric navigation in patients with AD, with MCI subtypes, in people with subjective memory complaints and healthy controls. Results showed that AD patients and amnestic MCI multiple domain (aMCImd) group were impaired in all subtests (i.e., egocentric, allocentric, and egocentric/allocentric in both real and virtual versions). Weniger and colleagues [66] compared 29 patients with aMCI with 29 healthy controls on two virtual reality navigation tasks assessing allocentric and egocentric spatial memory. Behavioral results showed that aMCI patients were significantly more impaired than controls in both allocentric and egocentric tasks. Rusconi and colleagues [67] submitted 18 healthy subjects and 18 MCI patients (9 aMCI and 9 naMCI) to a neuropsychological battery and to a new spatial navigation test reproducing an ideal city. They found that aMCI patients performed worse in learning a new route, in replacing landmarks in the city, and in drawing a map of the city, whilst naMCI patients’ performance was not different from that observed in healthy subjects.
Contrary to expectations, other considered factors did not show significant associations with the three cognitively impaired conditions. In this regard, a meta-analysis based on data from 18 longitudinal studies [68] found that depression was associated with a higher risk of dementia, and the use of antidepressants did not seem to be a protective factor of dementia, but a risk factor for MCI. However, it is worth specifying that the aforementioned meta-analysis mostly considered patients with a diagnosed depression, while we opted for a brief screening tool, i.e., the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), for excluding major depression. The same can be noted for other well-known reliable protective/risk factors against/favoring developing MCI and dementia, such as, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, and BMI, e.g., [69,70,71,72]. Regarding physical activity, we can speculate that the use of a single item, as in this study, may be insufficiently sensitive in capturing the variability within habits among our study participants. As for other health-related behavior, mixed findings are available; for example, alcohol consumption showed to be a protective factor for dementia, but not for MCI, whilst an opposite pattern can be found for BMI and exercising [73].
In conclusion, the present work offers further information on MCI, aMCI, and naMCI prevalence in an elderly population in Southern Italy. More importantly, it provides an overview on the potential protective/risk role of a considerable number of demographic, clinical, and lifestyle factors not limited to the MCI condition but also considering the aMCI subtype and the far less investigated naMCI subtype condition.

5. Limitations

The present study has some limitations, mainly related to the method employed for collecting data about the clinical and lifestyle factors. Most of them were indeed based on the answer of the participant to the questionnaire, and thus were self-reported information. Such answers can be biased by the effect of social desirability, since the participant might have the tendency to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. Another distortion can be produced by the recall bias, since participants might not remember properly previous events or experiences or omit relevant details. Another limitation comes from the fact that some factors were collected on the basis of a single item, which can be an incomplete and reductive measure of a more complex construct. Those weaknesses limit the possibility to draw a full generalization of the results obtained to the whole Italian elderly population. In order to remediate to those limitations, in further research it would be appropriate to collect information by also interviewing a proxy informant, and by employing more valid and reliable measure for each construct investigated.

6. Conclusions

It has been demonstrated that two-thirds of people with MCI progress to dementia [74]. This rate is sufficient to justify the effort in detecting the related modifiable risk factors in order to prevent and slow such progression. If we acknowledge, on one hand, that some factors are impossible to prevent (such as, age), on the other hand, there are other risk factors on which we can act in terms of prevention (such as, dietary habits, and lifestyle). In the absence of pharmacological treatments for cognitive impairment in the early stages, prevention through cognitive and social activities remains the only weapon we have to prevent deterioration and to promote a healthy and active aging. Our findings suggest an association between engagement in intellectual abilities and cognitive decline, this might be considered as a starting point for detecting possible modifiable factors against cognitive decline and dementia. Research challenges for this topic mainly concern the definition of risk and protective factors to be monitored and managed. To this aim, long-term longitudinal studies are warranted to disentangle the role of each factor in preventing specific cognitively impaired conditions (e.g., AD, VaD, MCI, and subtypes) and the transition from MCI to AD and other types of dementia.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph19053097/s1, Table S1: Mean Scores and Standard Deviations or Frequencies on the Variables Included in the Logistic Regression Models for the Three Elderly Groups, and Statistical Tests for Their Differences.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.O.C. and A.B.; Data curation, A.O.C.; Formal analysis, A.O.C.; Funding acquisition, A.O.C. and A.B.; Investigation, A.O.C., G.S., Luigi Tinella, A.L. and F.S.; Methodology, A.O.C., G.S. and A.L.; Supervision, A.O.C. and A.B.; Visualization, A.O.C., G.S., L.T., A.L., E.R., F.S. and A.B.; Writing—original draft, A.O.C., G.S. and L.T.; Writing—review and editing, A.O.C., G.S., L.T., A.L., E.R., F.S. and A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded for the first author by the project “Epidemiology of Topographical Disorientation and Mild Cognitive Impairment in a South Italian elderly population” and co-founded by Cohesion and Development Fund 2007–2013 APQ Research Puglia Region “Regional program supporting smart specialization and social and environmental sustainability—FutureInResearch” (Grant Code CEY4SQ4). The sponsor had no involvement in the study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Educational Studies, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari Aldo Moro (protocol code n. 3660-CEL01/17; 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy regulations.

Conflicts of Interest

The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of the article. The authors alone are responsible for the content and the writing of the article.

References

  1. Petersen, R.C.; Doody, R.; Kurz, A.; Mohs, R.C.; Morris, J.C.; Rabins, P.V.; Ritchie, K.; Rossor, M.; Thal, L.; Winblad, B. Current Concepts in Mild Cognitive Impairment. Arch. Neurol. 2001, 58, 1985–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mild Cognitive Impairment as a Diagnostic Entity—Petersen—2004—Journal of Internal Medicine—Wiley Online Library. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01388.x (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  3. Albert, M.S.; DeKosky, S.T.; Dickson, D.; Dubois, B.; Feldman, H.H.; Fox, N.C.; Gamst, A.; Holtzman, D.M.; Jagust, W.J.; Petersen, R.C.; et al. The Diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment Due to Alzheimer’s Disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association Workgroups on Diagnostic Guidelines for Alzheimer’s Disease. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2011, 7, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Mitchell, A.J.; Shiri-Feshki, M. Rate of Progression of Mild Cognitive Impairment to Dementia—Meta-Analysis of 41 Robust Inception Cohort Studies. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 2009, 119, 252–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ward, A.; Arrighi, H.M.; Michels, S.; Cedarbaum, J.M. Mild Cognitive Impairment: Disparity of Incidence and Prevalence Estimates. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2012, 8, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alexander, M.; Perera, G.; Ford, L.; Arrighi, H.M.; Foskett, N.; Debove, C.; Novak, G.; Gordon, M.F. Age-stratified prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in European populations: A systematic review. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2015, 48, 355–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hu, C.; Yu, D.; Sun, X.; Zhang, M.; Wang, L.; Qin, H. The Prevalence and Progression of Mild Cognitive Impairment among Clinic and Community Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2017, 29, 1595–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Pessoa, R.M.P.; Bomfim, A.J.L.; Ferreira, B.L.C.; Chagas, M.H.N. Diagnostic Criteria and Prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults Living in the Community: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch. Clin. Psychiatry 2019, 46, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Parnetti, L.; Chipi, E.; Salvadori, N.; D’Andrea, K.; Eusebi, P. Prevalence and Risk of Progression of Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease Stages: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Alzheimer’s Res. Ther. 2019, 11, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, H.; Zhong, D.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Jin, R. Epidemiological of mild cognitive impairment in Chinese elderly population: A systematic review. Chin. J. Evid.-Based Med. 2020, 20, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Deng, Y.; Zhao, S.; Cheng, G.; Yang, J.; Li, B.; Xu, K.; Xiao, P.; Li, W.; Rong, S. The Prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment among Chinese People: A Meta-Analysis. Neuroepidemiology 2021, 55, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lu, Y.; Liu, C.; Yu, D.; Fawkes, S.; Ma, J.; Zhang, M.; Li, C. Prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment in Community-Dwelling Chinese Populations Aged over 55 Years: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. BMC Geriatr. 2021, 21, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ribeiro, F.S.; Teixeira-Santos, A.C.; Leist, A.K. The Prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Aging Ment. Health 2021, 0, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Prencipe, M.; Santini, M.; Casini, A.R.; Pezzella, F.R.; Scaldaferri, N.; Culasso, F. Prevalence of Non-Dementingcognitive Disturbances and Theirassociation with Vascular Risk Factorsin an Elderly Population. J. Neurol. 2003, 250, 907–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Solfrizzi, V.; Panza, F.; Colacicco, A.M.; D’Introno, A.; Capurso, C.; Torres, F.; Grigoletto, F.; Maggi, S.; Parigi, A.D.; Reiman, E.M.; et al. Vascular Risk Factors, Incidence of MCI, and Rates of Progression to Dementia. Neurology 2004, 63, 1882–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zanetti, M.; Ballabio, C.; Abbate, C.; Cutaia, C.; Vergani, C.; Bergamaschini, L. Mild Cognitive Impairment Subtypes and Vascular Dementia in Community-Dwelling Elderly People: A 3-Year Follow-Up Study. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2006, 54, 580–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Solfrizzi, V.; D’Introno, A.; Colacicco, A.M.; Capurso, C.; Parigi, A.D.; Caselli, R.J.; Scapicchio, P.L.; Scafato, E.; Gandin, C.; Capurso, A.; et al. Incident Occurrence of Depressive Symptoms among Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment—The Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 2007, 24, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Carlo, A.D.; Lamassa, M.; Baldereschi, M.; Inzitari, M.; Scafato, E.; Farchi, G.; Inzitari, D. CIND and MCI in the Italian Elderly: Frequency, Vascular Risk Factors, Progression to Dementia. Neurology 2007, 68, 1909–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ravaglia, G.; Forti, P.; Montesi, F.; Lucicesare, A.; Pisacane, N.; Rietti, E.; Dalmonte, E.; Bianchin, M.; Mecocci, P. Mild Cognitive Impairment: Epidemiology and Dementia Risk in an Elderly Italian Population. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2008, 56, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Moretti, F.; De Ronchi, D.; Palmer, K.; Forlani, C.; Morini, V.; Ferrari, B.; Dalmonte, E.; Atti, A.R. Prevalence and Characteristics of Mild Cognitive Impairment in the General Population. Data from an Italian Population-Based Study: The Faenza Project. Aging Ment. Health 2013, 17, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guaita, A.; Vaccaro, R.; Davin, A.; Colombo, M.; Vitali, S.F.; Polito, L.; Abbondanza, S.; Valle, E.; Forloni, G.; Ferretti, V.V.; et al. Influence of Socio-Demographic Features and Apolipoprotein E Epsilon 4 Expression on the Prevalence of Dementia and Cognitive Impairment in a Population of 70–74-Year Olds: The InveCe.Ab Study. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2015, 60, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Limongi, F.; Siviero, P.; Noale, M.; Gesmundo, A.; Crepaldi, G.; Maggi, S.; Dementia Registry Study Group. Prevalence and Conversion to Dementia of Mild Cognitive Impairment in an Elderly Italian Population. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2017, 29, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Solfrizzi, V.; Scafato, E.; Lozupone, M.; Seripa, D.; Giannini, M.; Sardone, R.; Bonfiglio, C.; Abbrescia, D.I.; Galluzzo, L.; Gandin, C.; et al. Additive Role of a Potentially Reversible Cognitive Frailty Model and Inflammatory State on the Risk of Disability: The Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2017, 25, 1236–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Beydoun, M.A.; Beydoun, H.A.; Gamaldo, A.A.; Teel, A.; Zonderman, A.B.; Wang, Y. Epidemiologic Studies of Modifiable Factors Associated with Cognition and Dementia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Baumgart, M.; Snyder, H.M.; Carrillo, M.C.; Fazio, S.; Kim, H.; Johns, H. Summary of the Evidence on Modifiable Risk Factors for Cognitive Decline and Dementia: A Population-Based Perspective. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2015, 11, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Xu, W.; Tan, L.; Wang, H.-F.; Jiang, T.; Tan, M.-S.; Tan, L.; Zhao, Q.-F.; Li, J.-Q.; Wang, J.; Yu, J.-T. Meta-Analysis of Modifiable Risk Factors for Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2015, 86, 1299–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cooper, C.; Sommerlad, A.; Lyketsos, C.G.; Livingston, G. Modifiable Predictors of Dementia in Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Psychiatry 2015, 172, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Aguirre, G.K.; D’Esposito, M. Topographical Disorientation: A Synthesis and Taxonomy. Brain 1999, 122, 1613–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Tabert, M.H.; Manly, J.J.; Liu, X.; Pelton, G.H.; Rosenblum, S.; Jacobs, M.; Zamora, D.; Goodkind, M.; Bell, K.; Stern, Y.; et al. Neuropsychological Prediction of Conversion to Alzheimer Disease in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2006, 63, 916–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Caffò, A.O.; Lopez, A.; Spano, G.; Stasolla, F.; Serino, S.; Cipresso, P.; Riva, G.; Bosco, A. The Differential Effect of Normal and Pathological Aging on Egocentric and Allocentric Spatial Memory in Navigational and Reaching Space. Neurol. Sci. 2020, 41, 1741–1749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lopez, A.; Germani, A.; Tinella, L.; Caffò, A.O.; Postma, A.; Bosco, A. The Road More Travelled: The Differential Effects of Spatial Experience in Young and Elderly Participants. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lopez, A.; Caffò, A.O.; Postma, A.; Bosco, A. How to Separate Coordinate and Categorical Spatial Relation Components in Integrated Spatial Representations: A New Methodology for Analysing Sketch Maps. Scand. J. Psychol. 2020, 61, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Portet, F.; Ousset, P.J.; Visser, P.J.; Frisoni, G.B.; Nobili, F.; Scheltens, P.; Vellas, B.; Touchon, J. Disease (EADC), the M.W.G. of the E.C. on A. Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in Medical Practice: A Critical Review of the Concept and New Diagnostic Procedure. Report of the MCI Working Group of the European Consortium on Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2006, 77, 714–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Bosco, A.; Spano, G.; Caffò, A.O.; Lopez, A.; Grattagliano, I.; Saracino, G.; Pinto, K.; Hoogeveen, F.; Lancioni, G.E. Italians Do It Worse. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Optimal Cut-off Scores for People with Probable Alzheimer’s Disease and with Probable Cognitive Impairment. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2017, 29, 1113–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Tinella, L.; Lopez, A.; Caffò, A.O.; Nardulli, F.; Grattagliano, I.; Bosco, A. Cognitive Efficiency and Fitness-to-Drive along the Lifespan: The Mediation Effect of Visuospatial Transformations. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Assessing Self-maintenance: Activities of Daily Living, Mobility, and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living—KATZ—1983. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. Wiley Online Library. Available online: https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1983.tb03391.x (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  37. Hopman-Rock, M.; van Hirtum, H.; de Vreede, P.; Freiberger, E. Activities of Daily Living in Older Community-Dwelling Persons: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties of Instruments. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2019, 31, 917–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Quesada, J.J.; Ferrucci, L.; Calvani, D.; Valente, C.; Salani, B.; Bavazzano, A. Formal Education as an Effect Modifier of the Relationship between Mini-Mental State Examination Score and IADLs Disability in the Older Population. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 1997, 9, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Brink, T.L.; Yesavage, J.A.; Lum, O.; Heersema, P.H.; Adey, M.; Rose, T.L. Screening Tests for Geriatric Depression. Clin. Gerontol. 1982, 1, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Parmelee, P.A.; Lawton, M.P.; Katz, I.R. Psychometric Properties of the Geriatric Depression Scale among the Institutionalized Aged. Psychol. Assess. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1989, 1, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Greenberg, S.A. How To try this: The Geriatric Depression ScaleShort Form. Am. J. Nurs. 2007, 107, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Spano, G.; Caffò, A.; Bosco, A. Cognitive Functioning, Subjective Memory Complaints and Risky Behaviour Predict Minor Home Injuries in Elderly. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2018, 30, 985–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Spano, G.; Caffò, A.O.; Lanciano, T.; Curci, A.; Bosco, A. Visuospatial/Executive Abilities and Mood Affect the Reliability of a Subjective Memory Complaints Measure. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2020, 32, 1317–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Youn, J.C.; Kim, K.W.; Lee, D.Y.; Jhoo, J.H.; Lee, S.B.; Park, J.H.; Choi, E.A.; Choe, J.Y.; Jeong, J.W.; Choo, I.H.; et al. Development of the Subjective Memory Complaints Questionnaire. Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 2009, 27, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yim, S.J.; Yi, D.; Byun, M.S.; Choe, Y.M.; Choi, H.J.; Baek, H.; Sohn, B.K.; Kim, J.W.; Kim, E.-J.; Lee, D.Y. Screening Ability of Subjective Memory Complaints, Informant-Reports for Cognitive Decline, and Their Combination in Memory Clinic Setting. Psychiatry Investig. 2017, 14, 640–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Bean, J. Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Rey AVLT. In Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology; Kreutzer, J.S., DeLuca, J., Caplan, B., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 2174–2175. ISBN 978-0-387-79948-3. [Google Scholar]
  47. Carlesimo, G.A.; Caltagirone, C.; Gainotti, G.; Fadda, L.; Gallassi, R.; Lorusso, S.; Marfia, G.; Marra, C.; Nocentini, U.; Parnetti, L. The Mental Deterioration Battery: Normative Data, Diagnostic Reliability and Qualitative Analyses of Cognitive Impairment. ENE 1996, 36, 378–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Appollonio, I.; Leone, M.; Isella, V.; Piamarta, F.; Consoli, T.; Villa, M.L.; Forapani, E.; Russo, A.; Nichelli, P. The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB): Normative Values in an Italian Population Sample. Neurol. Sci. 2005, 26, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Spinnler, H.; Tognoni, G. Standardizzazione e Taratura Italiana di Test Neuropsicologici: Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio Neuropsicologico dell’Invecchiamento; Masson Italia Periodici: Milano, Italy, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  50. Caffarra, P.; Gardini, S.; Zonato, F.; Concari, L.; Dieci, F.; Copelli, S.; Freedman, M.; Stracciari, A.; Venneri, A. Italian Norms for the Freedman Version of the Clock Drawing Test. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2011, 33, 982–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Yener, G.; Tunçay, N.; Kayserili, G.; Erhan, E.; Akdede, B.; Zorlu, Y. Validation and Reliability of The Frontal Assesment Battery (FAB) in Turkish. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2008, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Can, S.S.; Gencay-Can, A.; Gunendi, Z. Validity and Reliability of the Clock Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment in Patients with Fibromyalgia. Compr. Psychiatry 2012, 53, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pai, M.-C.; Lee, C.-C.; Yang, Y.-C.; Lee, Y.-T.; Chen, K.-C.; Lin, S.-H.; Jheng, S.-S.; Sun, P.-W.; Cheng, P.-J. Development of a Questionnaire on Everyday Navigational Ability to Assess Topographical Disorientation in Alzheimer’s Disease. Am. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. Dement. 2012, 27, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ruggiero, G.; Iachini, T.; Ruotolo, F.; Senese, V.P. Spatial Memory: The Role of Egocentric and Allocentric Frames Of Reference; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2009; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
  55. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  56. West, S.G.; Finch, J.F.; Curran, P.J. Structural Equation Models with Nonnormal Variables: Problems and Remedies. In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995; pp. 56–75. ISBN 978-0-8039-5317-8. [Google Scholar]
  57. Tognoni, G.; Ceravolo, R.; Nucciarone, B.; Bianchi, F.; Dell’Agnello, G.; Ghicopulos, I.; Siciliano, G.; Murri, L. From Mild Cognitive Impairment to Dementia: A Prevalence Study in a District of Tuscany, Italy. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2005, 112, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Caamaño-Isorna, F.; Corral, M.; Montes-Martínez, A.; Takkouche, B. Education and Dementia: A Meta-Analytic Study. Neuroepidemiology 2006, 26, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sharp, E.S.; Gatz, M. The Relationship between Education and Dementia An Updated Systematic Review. Alzheimer Dis. Assoc. Disord. 2011, 25, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Maccora, J.; Peters, R.; Anstey, K.J. What Does (Low) Education Mean in Terms of Dementia Risk? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Highlighting Inconsistency in Measuring and Operationalising Education. SSM-Popul. Health 2020, 12, 100654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Caffò, A.O.; Lopez, A.; Spano, G.; Saracino, G.; Stasolla, F.; Ciriello, G.; Grattagliano, I.; Lancioni, G.E.; Bosco, A. The Role of Pre-Morbid Intelligence and Cognitive Reserve in Predicting Cognitive Efficiency in a Sample of Italian Elderly. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2016, 28, 1203–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. What Is Cognitive Reserve? Theory and Research Application of the Reserve Concept. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. Cambridge Core. Available online: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-international-neuropsychological-society/article/abs/what-is-cognitive-reserve-ory-and-research-application-of-the-reserve-concept/B6524DF8FC814A462004141F7B19BCF4 (accessed on 10 January 2022).
  63. Valenzuela, M.J.; Sachdev, P. Brain Reserve and Dementia: A Systematic Review. Psychol. Med. 2006, 36, 441–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Pai, M.-C.; Jacobs, W.J. Topographical Disorientation in Community-Residing Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2004, 19, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hort, J.; Laczó, J.; Vyhnálek, M.; Bojar, M.; Bureš, J.; Vlček, K. Spatial Navigation Deficit in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 4042–4047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Weniger, G.; Ruhleder, M.; Lange, C.; Wolf, S.; Irle, E. Egocentric and Allocentric Memory as Assessed by Virtual Reality in Individuals with Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49, 518–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rusconi, M.L.; Suardi, A.; Zanetti, M.; Rozzini, L. Spatial Navigation in Elderly Healthy Subjects, Amnestic and Non Amnestic MCI Patients. J. Neurol. Sci. 2015, 359, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chan, J.Y.C.; Yiu, K.K.L.; Kwok, T.C.Y.; Wong, S.Y.S.; Tsoi, K.K.F. Depression and Antidepressants as Potential Risk Factors in Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 18 Longitudinal Studies. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2019, 20, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Lautenschlager, N.T.; Cox, K.L.; Ellis, K.A. Physical Activity for Cognitive Health: What Advice Can We Give to Older Adults with Subjective Cognitive Decline and Mild Cognitive Impairment? Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2019, 21, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  70. Wang, Z.; Hou, J.; Shi, Y.; Tan, Q.; Peng, L.; Deng, Z.; Wang, Z.; Guo, Z. Influence of Lifestyles on Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Decision Tree Model Study. Clin. Interv. Aging 2020, 15, 2009–2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Feng, L.; Cheah, I.K.-M.; Ng, M.M.-X.; Li, J.; Chan, S.M.; Lim, S.L.; Mahendran, R.; Kua, E.-H.; Halliwell, B. The Association between Mushroom Consumption and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study in Singapore. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 2019, 68, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Assaf, G.; El Khoury, J.; Jawhar, S.; Rahme, D. Mild Cognitive Impairment and Modifiable Risk Factors among Lebanese Older Adults in Primary Care. Asian J. Psychiatry 2021, 65, 102828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Boo, Y.Y.; Jutila, O.-E.; Cupp, M.A.; Manikam, L.; Cho, S.-I. The Identification of Established Modifiable Mid-Life Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease Which Contribute to Cognitive Decline: Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging (KLoSA). Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2021, 33, 2573–2586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Busse, A.; Angermeyer, M.C.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. Progression of Mild Cognitive Impairment to Dementia: A Challenge to Current Thinking. Br. J. Psychiatry 2006, 189, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the enrollment process.
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the enrollment process.
Ijerph 19 03097 g001
Table 1. Socio-Demographic, clinical and lifestyle factors investigated and their related measure.
Table 1. Socio-Demographic, clinical and lifestyle factors investigated and their related measure.
FactorMeasure
AgeYears
SexMale/Female
EducationYears
Depression levelGeriatric Depression Scale (GDS, 15 item) total score [24]
Familiarity with ADYes/no
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs)Yes/no
Perceived physical painLikert scale 1–5 (not at all–very much)
SmokingEver—never
AlcoholLikert scale 1–5 (never–every day)
Waist-Hip Ratio (WHR)Waist circumference/Hip circumference
Body Mass Index (BMI)Weight (in kg)/Height2 (in m)
Second languageYes/no
Physical activitiesLikert scale 1–6 (never –every day)
Cultural activitiesLikert scale 1–6 (never–every day)
Intellectual activitiesLikert scale 1–6 (never–every day)
Productive activitiesLikert scale 1–6 (never–every day)
Social activitiesLikert scale 1–6 (never–every day)
Quality of life—physical healthSF-12 Health Survey–Physical health (6 item)
Quality of life—mental healthSF-12 Health Survey–Mental health (6 item)
Sleep qualityLikert scale 1–5 (very good–very bad)
TD Self reportQuestionnaire on Everyday Navigational Ability (QuENA, 10 item) total score [29]
TD EgoEgo-Allo task (8 item) egocentric score [30]
TD AlloEgo-Allo task (8 item) allocentric score [30]
TD TotalEgo-Allo task (16 item) total score [30]
Food group 1 (carbohydrates)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
Food group 2 (cured and smoked meats)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
Food group 3 (white meat)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
Food group 4 (red meat)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
Food group 5 (milk)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
Food group 6 (dairy products and cheeses)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
Food group 7 (eggs)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
Food group 8 (fish meat)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
Food group 9 (raw and cooked vegetables with leaves)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
Food group 10 (vegetables and legumes)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
Food group 11 (fruit)Likert scale 1–5 (many times per day–never)
WaterLikert scale 1–5 (more than 1 L per day–never)
Carbonated drinksLikert scale 1–5 (more than 1 L per day–never)
BeerLikert scale 1–5 (more than 1 L per day–never)
WineLikert scale 1–5 (more than 1 L per day–never)
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants, mean scores and standard deviations on the neuropsychological screening tests for the elderly groups, and statistical tests for their differences.
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants, mean scores and standard deviations on the neuropsychological screening tests for the elderly groups, and statistical tests for their differences.
Healthy Elderly
(n = 738)
Amnestic MCI
(n = 62)
Non-Amnestic MCI
(n = 39)
F o χ2pPost Hoc
Age72.36 ± 6.4475.87 ± 6.5675.13 ± 6.6811.16<0.001HE < aMCI = naMCI
Sex (F/M)403/33539/2325/142.780.25
Education9.44 ± 4.786.23 ± 3.396.77 ± 4.5818.38<0.001HE > aMCI = naMCI
MoCA23.19 ± 3.0616.06 ± 0.8616.18 ± 0.84267.40<0.001HE > aMCI = naMCI
ADL5.91 ± 0.445.61 ± 1.165.79 ± 0.971.870.16HE = aMCI = naMCI
IADL7.61 ± 0.886.89 ± 1.97.36 ± 1.651.620.21HE = aMCI = naMCI
GDS2.74 ± 2.583.45 ± 3.283.37 ± 2.162.880.057HE = aMCI = naMCI
SMCq2.58 ± 2.295.15 ± 2.664.54 ± 2.3922.72<0.001HE < aMCI = naMCI
RAVLT Immediate recall38.5 ± 10.1928.63 ± 6.6638.73 ± 6.129.02<0.001HE = naMCI > aMCI
RAVLT delayed recall8.84 ± 3.815.83 ± 1.889.52 ± 1.9521.35<0.001HE = naMCI > aMCI
FAB13.9 ± 3.0112.74 ± 2.9610.81 ± 2.9439.41<0.001HE = aMCI > naMCI
CDT8.64 ± 1.148.08 ± 1.216.77 ± 1.0796.98<0.001HE = aMCI > naMCI
Abbreviations: MoCA: Montreal Cognitive Assessment; ADL: Activities of Daily Living; IADL: Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; GDS: Geriatric Depression Scale; SMCq: Subjective Memory Complaints questionnaire; RAVLT: Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test; FAB: Frontal Assessment Battery; CDT: Clock Drawing Test.
Table 3. Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) and related p-value for each factor and MCI group.
Table 3. Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) and related p-value for each factor and MCI group.
Raw OR95% CIpCorrected * OR95% CIp
Age1.081.04, 1.11<0.001
Sex0.700.45, 1.060.098
Education0.840.79, 0.89<0.001
Depression level1.091.01, 1.17<0.051.030.95, 1.110.454
Familiarity with AD1.280.64, 2.390.4551.450.70, 2.810.294
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs)0.910.34, 2.020.8240.820.30, 1.870.659
Perceived physical pain1.321.07, 1.59<0.011.070.86, 1.320.539
Smoking0.700.44, 1.100.1321.070.63, 1.810.799
Alcohol0.680.46, 1.000.0570.860.56, 1.280.457
Waist-Hip Ratio (WHR)0.330.04, 2.390.2910.700.07, 6.220.762
Body Mass Index (BMI)1.020.98, 1.060.3721.010.96, 1.050.818
Second language0.500.28, 0.86<0.051.220.63, 2.280.543
Physical activities0.810.69, 0.93<0.010.900.76, 1.040.165
Cultural activities0.700.54, 0.89<0.010.960.73, 1.220.732
Intellectual activities0.760.68, 0.84<0.0010.830.74, 0.93<0.01
Productive activities1.020.92, 1.150.6831.010.90, 1.140.851
Social activities0.960.84, 1.110.5711.030.88, 1.200.746
Quality of life—physical health0.910.85, 0.97<0.010.980.91, 1.060.579
Quality of life—mental health0.980.93, 1.030.4201.000.95, 1.050.910
Sleep quality1.271.03, 1.57<0.051.150.93, 1.430.200
Topographical disorientation self-report0.980.93, 1.030.4010.980.93, 1.030.466
Topographical disorientation egocentric component1.201.09, 1.32<0.0011.161.05, 1.29<0.01
Topographical disorientation allocentric component1.201.09, 1.32<0.0011.141.03, 1.26<0.05
Topographical disorientation total1.131.07, 1.20<0.0011.101.04, 1.17<0.01
Food group 1 (carbohydrates)1.060.78, 1.450.7251.020.74, 1.420.902
Food group 2 (cured and smoked meats)0.980.76, 1.280.8951.010.77, 1.340.924
Food group 3 (white meat)0.990.73, 1.350.9250.870.63, 1.220.403
Food group 4 (red meat)1.320.97, 1.800.0781.270.93, 1.750.138
Food group 5 (milk)0.940.81, 1.100.4220.840.72, 0.99<0.05
Food group 6 (dairy products and cheeses)0.800.61, 1.040.0880.800.61, 1.040.093
Food group 7 (eggs)1.140.82, 1.620.4451.160.82, 1.670.412
Food group 8 (fish meat)0.910.64, 1.330.6250.980.68, 1.450.922
Food group 9 (raw and cooked vegetables with leaves)0.850.66, 1.110.2390.860.65, 1.140.298
Food group 10 (vegetables and legumes)0.820.62, 1.080.1570.850.64, 1.130.264
Food group 11 (fruit)0.780.60, 1.030.0650.790.61, 1.050.097
Water1.130.82, 1.590.4791.220.88, 1.740.247
Carbonated drinks0.860.59, 1.210.4030.970.66, 1.380.871
Beer0.680.46, 1.000.0570.860.56, 1.280.457
Wine1.080.86, 1.360.5181.050.81, 1.360.713
* Corrected for age, sex, and education. Abbreviations: OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval.
Table 4. Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) and related p-value for each factor and amnestic MCI group.
Table 4. Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) and related p-value for each factor and amnestic MCI group.
Raw OR95% CIpCorrected * OR95% CIp
Age1.091.04, 1.13<0.001
Sex0.710.41, 1.200.209
Education0.820.75, 0.89<0.001
Depression level1.091.00, 1.19<0.051.030.94, 1.130.508
Familiarity with AD2.080.99, 4.05<0.052.501.13, 5.18<0.05
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs)1.000.29, 2.570.9980.920.27, 2.450.885
Perceived physical pain1.381.07, 1.76<0.051.120.87, 1.460.372
Smoking0.600.22, 1.350.2561.220.43, 3.030.681
Alcohol0.760.46, 1.210.2630.960.57, 1.560.860
Waist-Hip Ratio (WHR)0.060.01, 0.84<0.050.080.01, 1.670.110
Body Mass Index (BMI)0.980.92, 1.040.5840.970.90, 1.030.288
Second language0.510.24, 0.990.0611.330.58, 2.840.476
Physical activities0.750.59, 0.91<0.010.830.66, 1.020.096
Cultural activities0.660.46, 0.89<0.050.920.64, 1.250.610
Intellectual activities0.730.63, 0.83<0.0010.800.69, 0.93<0.01
Productive activities1.030.90, 1.200.6441.030.89, 1.210.687
Social activities0.880.75, 1.040.1150.930.78, 1.110.402
Quality of life—physical health0.900.83, 0.98<.010.960.88, 1.060.414
Quality of life—mental health0.950.89, 1.010.0690.960.90, 1.020.180
Sleep quality1.371.06, 1.78<0.051.250.96, 1.630.097
Topographical disorientation self-report0.940.87, 1.010.0810.950.88, 1.010.099
Topographical disorientation egocentric component1.321.17, 1.48<0.0011.301.14, 1.48<0.001
Topographical disorientation allocentric component1.311.16, 1.47<0.0011.251.09, 1.42<0.001
Topographical disorientation total0.840.78, 0.90<0.0011.181.09, 1.27<0.001
Food group 1 (carbohydrates)1.260.85, 1.880.2521.230.82, 1.870.327
Food group 2 (cured and smoked meats)1.050.76, 1.470.7571.080.77, 1.530.669
Food group 3 (white meat)0.900.63, 1.330.5930.770.52, 1.160.204
Food group 4 (red meat)1.420.97, 2.110.0781.340.90, 2.010.155
Food group 5 (milk)0.960.79, 1.180.6950.850.69, 1.050.116
Food group 6 (dairy products and cheeses)0.720.52, 0.99<0.050.720.52, 0.99<0.05
Food group 7 (eggs)1.280.83, 2.010.2751.310.84, 2.080.249
Food group 8 (fish meat)0.810.53, 1.280.3560.860.55, 1.870.501
Food group 9 (raw and cooked vegetables with leaves)0.840.61, 1.170.3030.850.60, 1.200.356
Food group 10 (vegetables and legumes)0.790.55, 1.110.1780.820.57, 1.160.269
Food group 11 (fruit)0.740.55, 1.030.0570.750.55, 1.050.082
Water1.190.79, 1.850.4261.320.87, 2.080.204
Carbonated drinks0.970.62, 1.440.8981.120.71, 1.690.614
Beer0.760.46, 1.210.2630.960.57, 1.560.860
Wine1.160.87, 1.550.3241.100.80, 1.520.550
* Corrected for age, sex, and education. Abbreviations: OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval.
Table 5. Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) and related p-value for each factor and non-amnestic MCI group.
Table 5. Odds ratio (95% confidence interval) and related p-value for each factor and non-amnestic MCI group.
Raw OR95% CIpCorrected * OR95% CIp
Age1.071.02, 1.12<0.05
Sex0.670.34, 1.300.248
Education0.860.78, 0.94<0.01
Depression level1.090.97, 1.220.1451.030.90, 1.160.664
Familiarity with AD0.250.01, 1.170.1700.270.02, 1.290.199
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs)0.760.12, 2.060.7150.680.11, 2.360.601
Perceived physical pain0.830.61, 1.130.2161.000.73, 1.380.975
Smoking1.220.61, 2.380.5712.060.94, 4–470.068
Alcohol0.570.29, 1.040.0790.700.35, 1.320.286
Waist-Hip Ratio (WHR)2.420.14, 23.830.4970.680.35, 74.930.151
Body Mass Index (BMI)0.940.89, 0.99<0.050.950.90, 1.010.085
Second language0.490.18, 1.100.1101.060.36, 2.720.914
Physical activities0.890.71, 1.080.2740.980.77, 1.200.822
Cultural activities0.780.52, 1.070.1501.020.67, 1.450.929
Intellectual activities0.800.68, 0.94<0.010.880.74,1.040.134
Productive activities1.010.86, 1.210.9261.000.84, 1.200.961
Social activities1.160.91, 1.540.2811.240.96, 1.670.121
Quality of life—physical health0.930.84, 1.040.1951.000.90, 1.130.979
Quality of life—mental health1.050.96, 1.150.3141.060.98, 1.160.164
Sleep quality1.110.80, 1.530.5461.010.73, 1.410.935
Topographical disorientation self-report1.030.96, 1.100.4201.030.96, 1.100.419
Topographical disorientation egocentric component0.980.84, 1.160.7991.020.87, 1.220.833
Topographical disorientation allocentric component0.940.82, 1.090.3780.930.86, 1.160.923
Topographical disorientation total0.970.89, 1.060.4921.000.91, 1.110.952
Food group 1 (carbohydrates)0.820.52, 1.300.3870.780.49, 1.270.312
Food group 2 (cured and smoked meats)0.880.60, 1.320.5420.910.60, 1.380.637
Food group 3 (white meat)1.140.71, 1.910.5981.050.64, 1.760.862
Food group 4 (red meat)1.180.75, 1.910.4811.170.74, 1.880.508
Food group 5 (milk)0.910.72, 1.150.4040.830.65, 1.060.120
Food group 6 (dairy products and cheeses)0.940.63, 1.410.7620.930.62, 1.390.706
Food group 7 (eggs)0.970.59, 1.640.9110.970.59, 1.670.920
Food group 8 (fish meat)1.120.64, 2.050.7131.210.69, 2.220.523
Food group 9 (raw and cooked vegetables with leaves)0.880.59, 1.310.5160.880.58, 1.320.531
Food group 10 (vegetables and legumes)0.870.57, 1.320.5210.900.58, 1.370.635
Food group 11 (fruit)0.870.58, 1.380.5100.870.58, 1.390.522
Water1.040.64, 1.780.8701.130.70, 1.930.636
Carbonated drinks0.680.35, 1.200.2220.750.38, 1.320.360
Beer0.570.29, 1.040.0800.700.35, 1.320.285
Wine0.970.67, 1.390.8560.950.64, 1.400.791
* Corrected for age, sex, and education. Abbreviations: OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Caffò, A.O.; Spano, G.; Tinella, L.; Lopez, A.; Ricciardi, E.; Stasolla, F.; Bosco, A. The Prevalence of Amnestic and Non-Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Its Association with Different Lifestyle Factors in a South Italian Elderly Population. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3097. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053097

AMA Style

Caffò AO, Spano G, Tinella L, Lopez A, Ricciardi E, Stasolla F, Bosco A. The Prevalence of Amnestic and Non-Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Its Association with Different Lifestyle Factors in a South Italian Elderly Population. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(5):3097. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053097

Chicago/Turabian Style

Caffò, Alessandro Oronzo, Giuseppina Spano, Luigi Tinella, Antonella Lopez, Elisabetta Ricciardi, Fabrizio Stasolla, and Andrea Bosco. 2022. "The Prevalence of Amnestic and Non-Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Its Association with Different Lifestyle Factors in a South Italian Elderly Population" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 5: 3097. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053097

APA Style

Caffò, A. O., Spano, G., Tinella, L., Lopez, A., Ricciardi, E., Stasolla, F., & Bosco, A. (2022). The Prevalence of Amnestic and Non-Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Its Association with Different Lifestyle Factors in a South Italian Elderly Population. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 3097. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053097

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop