Neuropsychological case report of MCI reversion at one-year follow-up

Gali Weissberger, Katherine Gibson, Caroline Nguyen, Duke Han

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


This report presents the neuropsychological profile of an older gentleman diagnosed with single-domain mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at baseline who reverted to normal cognitive functioning at 1-year follow-up. The case highlights important considerations for assessing and diagnosing MCI in clinical settings in the context of sizeable reversion rates that have been reported extensively in the literature. A 72-year-old gentleman presented to our Neuropsychology Clinic with subjective memory complaints. Per recommendation, the patient returned for follow-up testing 1-year later. A clinical interview, comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests, and mood questionnaires were administered during both evaluations. At baseline, DSM-5 Mild Neurocognitive Disorder consistent with single-domain amnestic MCI was diagnosed based on several impaired scores on the California Verbal Learning Test, 2nd version (CVLT-II) and collateral report of subtle decline in functioning. At follow-up, all cognitive performances fell within normal limits. The patient no longer met criteria for Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. The present case study highlights important considerations when assessing and diagnosing MCI in the clinical setting. Repeat testing in clinical settings is underscored by the sizeable rate of MCI reversion reported in the literature. Important diagnostic and feedback considerations are discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)284-293
Number of pages10
JournalApplied neuropsychology. Adult
Issue number3
StatePublished - 3 May 2020
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.


  • Case report
  • MCI
  • MCI reversion
  • diagnosis
  • neuropsychology


Dive into the research topics of 'Neuropsychological case report of MCI reversion at one-year follow-up'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this