Search

Background: Rapidly growing healthcare demand associated with global population aging has spurred the development of new digital tools for the assessment of cognitive performance in older adults. Objective: To develop a fully automated Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) assessment model and validate the model's rating consistency. Methods: The Automated Assessment Model for MMSE (AAM-MMSE) was an about 10-min computerized cognitive screening tool containing the same questions as the traditional paper-based Chinese MMSE. The validity of the AAM-MMSE was assessed in term of the consistency between the AAM-MMSE rating and physician rating. Results: A total of 427 participants were recruited for this study. The average age of these participants was 60.6 years old (ranging from 19 to 104 years old). According to the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the interrater reliability between physicians and the AAM-MMSE for the full MMSE scale AAM-MMSE was high [ICC (2,1)=0.952; with its 95% CI of (0.883,0.974)]. According to the weighted kappa coefficients results the interrater agreement level for audio-related items showed high, but for items "Reading and obey", "Three-stage command", and "Writing complete sentence" were slight to fair. The AAM-MMSE rating accuracy was 87%. A Bland-Altman plot showed that the bias between the two total scores was 1.48 points with the upper and lower limits of agreement equal to 6.23 points and −3.26 points. Conclusions: Our work offers a promising fully automated MMSE assessment system for cognitive screening with pretty good accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Possin and Rosen provide a robust commentary exploring the challenges of using caregivers as cognitive testers. Informants have an important and often overlooked role in diagnosing cognitive impairment. O'Caoimh et al. show they can support cognitive screening in advance of clinic, suggesting new research avenues including the potential for home-monitoring. Although concerns testing may engender bias, introduce practice effects, and impact patient autonomy are valid and require examination, these should be viewed in light of patient preference, clinical need, and the broader ethics of assessing dementia. The importance of distinguishing concerns over accuracy and ethical appropriateness is also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Differentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is important because of the higher progression rate to dementia for MCI and when considering future disease-modifying drugs that will have treatment indications at the MCI stage.Objective: We examined if the two most widely-used cognitive tests, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and clock-drawing test (CDT), and a test of attention/executive function (AQT) accurately can differentiate MCI from SCD.Methods: We included 466 consecutively recruited non-demented patients with cognitive complaints from the BioFINDER study who had been referred to memory clinics, predominantly from primary care. They were classified as MCI (n = 258) or SCD (n = 208) after thorough neuropsychological assessments. The accuracy of MMSE, CDT, and AQT for identifying MCI was examined both in training and validation samples and in the whole population.Results: As a single test, MMSE had the highest accuracy (sensitivity 73%, specificity 60%). The best combination of two tests was MMSE < 27 points or AQT > 91 seconds (sensitivity 56%, specificity 78%), but in logistic regression models, their AUC (0.76) was not significantly better than MMSE alone (AUC 0.75). CDT and AQT performed significantly worse (AUC 0.71; p < 0.001-0.05); otherwise no differences were seen between any combination of two or three tests.Conclusion: Neither single nor combinations of tests could differentiate MCI from SCD with adequately high accuracy. There is a great need to further develop, validate, and implement accurate screening-tests for primary care to improve accurate identification of MCI among individuals that seek medical care due to cognitive symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Repeated measurements could be helpful to identify patients with early cognitive decline. We compare the variation of cognitive performance over one year in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and healthy individuals using the Brain on Track self-applied computerized test (BoT). The study was initiated 30 patients with probable MCI and 377 controls from a population-based cohort, who performed the BoT test from home every three months for one year. The scores were compared using a linear mixed-effects model. All participants increased their scores in the first tests, after 120 days MCI patients started to decline, with a statistically significant higher rate. The area under the curve to detect MCI was 0.94. We identified a significant decline in cognitive performance over one year in patients with MCI using BoT and the test presented a high discriminative ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although required to improve the usability of cognitive screening instruments (CSIs), the use of cut-off scores is controversial yet poorly researched.Objective: To explore cut-off scores for two short CSIs: the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) and Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen, describing adjustments in scores for diagnosis (MCI or dementia), age (≤, >75 years), and education (<, ≥12 years), comparing two methods: the maximal accuracy approach, derived from receiver operating characteristic curves, and Youden's Index.Methods: Pooled analysis of assessments from patients attending memory clinics in Canada between 1999-2010 : 766 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 1,746 with dementia, and 875 normal controls.Results: The Qmci was more accurate than the SMMSE in differentiating controls from MCI or cognitive impairment (MCI and dementia). Employing the maximal accuracy approach, the optimal SMMSE cut-off for cognitive impairment was <28/30 (AUC 0.86, sensitivity 74%, specificity 88%) versus <63/100 for the Qmci (AUC 0.93, sensitivity 85%, specificity 85%). Using Youden's Index, the optimal SMMSE cut-off remained <28/30 but fell slightly to <62/100 for the Qmci (sensitivity 83%, specificity 87%). The optimal cut-off for MCI was <29/30 for the SMMSE and <67/100 for the Qmci, irrespective of technique. The maximal accuracy approach generally produced higher Qmci cut-offs than Youden's Index, both requiring adjustment for age and education. There were no clinically meaningful differences in SMMSE cut-off scores by age and education or method employed.Conclusion: Caution should be exercised selecting cut-offs as these differ by age, education, and method of derivation, with the extent of adjustment varying between CSIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sensitive and specific instruments are required to screen for cognitive impairment (CI) in busy clinical practice. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is widely validated but few studies compare it to tests designed specifically to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Objective: Comparison of two "MCI specific" screens: the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen (Qmci) and MoCA. Methods: Patients with subjective memory complaints (SMC; n = 73), MCI (n = 103), or dementia (n = 274), were referred to a university hospital memory clinic and underwent comprehensive assessment. Caregivers, without cognitive symptoms, were recruited as normal controls (n = 101). Results: The Qmci was more accurate than the MoCA in differentiating MCI from controls, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 versus 0.80, p = 0.009. The Qmci had greater (AUC 0.81), albeit non-significant, accuracy than the MoCA (AUC 0.73) in separating MCI from SMC, p = 0.09. At its recommended cut-off (<62/100), the Qmci had a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 87% for CI (MCI/dementia). Raising the cut-off to <65 optimized sensitivity (94%), reducing specificity (80%). At <26/30 the MoCA had better sensitivity (96%) but poor specificity (58%). A MoCA cut-off of <24 provided the optimal balance. Median Qmci administration time was 4.5 (±1.3) minutes compared with 9.5 (±2.8) for the MoCA. Conclusions: Although both tests distinguish MCI from dementia, the Qmci is particularly accurate in separating MCI from normal cognition and has shorter administration times, suggesting it is more useful in busy hospital clinics. This study reaffirms the high sensitivity of the MoCA but suggests a lower cut-off (<24) in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]