RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The presence of subjective cognitive complaints (SCCs) is a core criterion for diagnosis of subjective cognitive decline (SCD); however, no standard procedure for distinguishing normative and non-normative SCCs has yet been established. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differentiation of participants with SCD according to SCC severity improves the validity of the prediction of progression in SCD and MCI and to explore validity metrics for two extreme thresholds of the distribution in scores in a questionnaire on SCCs. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-three older adults with SCCs participating in the Compostela Aging Study (CompAS) were classified as MCI or SCD at baseline. The participants underwent two follow-up assessments and were classified as cognitively stable or worsened. Severity of SCCs (low and high) in SCD was established by using two different percentiles of the questionnaire score distribution as cut-off points. The validity of these cut-off points for predicting progression using socio-demographic, health, and neuropsychological variables was tested by machine learning (ML) analysis. RESULTS: Severity of SCCs in SCD established considering the 5th percentile as a cut-off point proved to be the best metric for predicting progression. The variables with the main role in conforming the predictive algorithm were those related to memory, cognitive reserve, general health, and the stability of diagnosis over time. CONCLUSION: Moderate to high complainers showed an increased probability of progression in cognitive decline, suggesting the clinical relevance of standard procedures to determine SCC severity. Our findings highlight the important role of the multimodal ML approach in predicting progression.
