Quality of Life in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia Associated with Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) have a profound impact on patients' quality of life (QoL), with progressive declines occurring as the disease advances. This systematic review aims to summarize the published evidence on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in individuals with MCI due to AD and mild AD dementia. Comprehensive searches were conducted across five major databases to identify studies reporting on utility values, disutilities, and QoL measures in these patient populations. A total of 23 studies were included that utilized various QoL assessment tools, including EQ-5D (n = 14), SF-36/SF-12 (n = 4), and QOL-AD (n = 11). Reported EQ-5D scores ranged from 0.81 to 0.92 for patients with MCI and from 0.67 to 0.85 for those with mild AD, indicating a noticeable decline in QoL as the disease progresses. QOL-AD scores ranged from 33.8 to 42.5 for MCI and from 32.4 to 38.1 for mild AD, equally reflecting the greater impairment in QoL with disease advancement. Interventions were generally associated with smaller declines in PROs compared to placebo, suggesting a positive impact of treatment in mitigating QoL deterioration. The findings underscore the significant QoL differences between MCI and mild AD, emphasizing the potential benefit of early intervention to preserve QoL and delay disease progression. This review highlights the importance of continued research to better understand QoL in patients with MCI and mild AD dementia, particularly in terms of capturing comprehensive patient-reported outcomes and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions over time. These findings can contribute to a more informed approach in clinical practice and support decision-making in the management of early-stage AD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".