Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment Using CogEvo: A Computerized Cognitive Function Assessment Tool.

IF 2.5 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Journal of Primary Care and Community Health Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/21501319241239228
Toru Satoh, Yoichi Sawada, Hideaki Saba, Hiroshi Kitamoto, Yoshiki Kato, Yoshiko Shiozuka, Tomoko Kuwada, Sayoko Shima, Kana Murakami, Megumi Sasaki, Yudai Abe, Kaori Harano
{"title":"Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment Using CogEvo: A Computerized Cognitive Function Assessment Tool.","authors":"Toru Satoh, Yoichi Sawada, Hideaki Saba, Hiroshi Kitamoto, Yoshiki Kato, Yoshiko Shiozuka, Tomoko Kuwada, Sayoko Shima, Kana Murakami, Megumi Sasaki, Yudai Abe, Kaori Harano","doi":"10.1177/21501319241239228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction/objectives: </strong>To assess the utility of the computerized cognitive function assessment tool, CogEvo, as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment in primary care, we explored the relationship between CogEvo performance, age, and the severity of cognitive dysfunction evaluated by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The observational cross-sectional study included 209 individuals' data (mean age 79.4 ± 8.9 years). We conducted a correlation analysis between CogEvo and MMSE scores, compared the performance among the 3 cognitive function groups (MMSE ≥ 28 group; MMSE24-27 group; MMSE ≤ 23 group) using the MMSE cut-off, and evaluated CogEvo's predictive accuracy for cognitive dysfunction through ROC analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both total CogEvo and MMSE scores significantly decreased with age. A significant positive correlation was observed between total CogEvo and MMSE scores, but a ceiling effect was detected in MMSE performance. Significant differences were observed in the total CogEvo score, including orientation and spatial cognitive function scores, among the 3 groups. CogEvo showed no educational bias. ROC analyses indicated moderate discrimination between the MMSE ≥ 28 group and the MMSE24-27 and MMSE ≤ 23 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The computer-administered CogEvo has the advantage of not exhibiting ceiling effects or educational bias like the MMSE, and was found to be able to detect age-related cognitive decline and impairment.</p>","PeriodicalId":46723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","volume":"15 ","pages":"21501319241239228"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10953101/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319241239228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction/objectives: To assess the utility of the computerized cognitive function assessment tool, CogEvo, as a screening tool for mild cognitive impairment in primary care, we explored the relationship between CogEvo performance, age, and the severity of cognitive dysfunction evaluated by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).

Methods: The observational cross-sectional study included 209 individuals' data (mean age 79.4 ± 8.9 years). We conducted a correlation analysis between CogEvo and MMSE scores, compared the performance among the 3 cognitive function groups (MMSE ≥ 28 group; MMSE24-27 group; MMSE ≤ 23 group) using the MMSE cut-off, and evaluated CogEvo's predictive accuracy for cognitive dysfunction through ROC analysis.

Results: Both total CogEvo and MMSE scores significantly decreased with age. A significant positive correlation was observed between total CogEvo and MMSE scores, but a ceiling effect was detected in MMSE performance. Significant differences were observed in the total CogEvo score, including orientation and spatial cognitive function scores, among the 3 groups. CogEvo showed no educational bias. ROC analyses indicated moderate discrimination between the MMSE ≥ 28 group and the MMSE24-27 and MMSE ≤ 23 groups.

Conclusions: The computer-administered CogEvo has the advantage of not exhibiting ceiling effects or educational bias like the MMSE, and was found to be able to detect age-related cognitive decline and impairment.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用 CogEvo 评估轻度认知功能障碍:计算机化认知功能评估工具
简介/目的为了评估计算机化认知功能评估工具 CogEvo 作为初级保健中轻度认知功能障碍筛查工具的实用性,我们探讨了 CogEvo 性能、年龄和通过迷你精神状态检查(MMSE)评估的认知功能障碍严重程度之间的关系:观察性横断面研究包括 209 人的数据(平均年龄为 79.4 ± 8.9 岁)。我们对 CogEvo 和 MMSE 分数进行了相关性分析,使用 MMSE 临界值比较了 3 个认知功能组(MMSE ≥ 28 组;MMSE24-27 组;MMSE ≤ 23 组)的表现,并通过 ROC 分析评估了 CogEvo 对认知功能障碍的预测准确性:结果:随着年龄的增长,CogEvo和MMSE总分均明显下降。CogEvo 总分和 MMSE 分数之间存在明显的正相关,但在 MMSE 表现中发现了天花板效应。在 CogEvo 总分(包括定向和空间认知功能得分)方面,3 组之间存在明显差异。CogEvo 没有显示出教育偏差。ROC分析表明,MMSE≥28组与MMSE24-27组和MMSE≤23组之间存在中等程度的差异:结论:计算机管理的 CogEvo 具有不像 MMSE 那样表现出天花板效应或教育偏差的优点,并且能够检测出与年龄相关的认知能力下降和损伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
183
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Merging Law and Medicine: Patient Attitudes About and Experiences with Social Needs Screening and Medical-Legal Partnerships in Primary Care. Understanding Experiences of First Contact Physiotherapy in General Practice: A Realist Qualitative Study. The Effects of a Health Literacy Promotion Program on Health Behaviors and Blood Pressure Levels Among Uncontrolled Hypertensive Patients: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Dynamics of Lifestyle Counseling for Chronic Diseases Within and Between General Practices and Social Work Services Causal Loop Diagram and Points for Improvement. "The resources are there, it's just not sufficient:" Primary Care Team Members and Their Experiences with Connecting Patients to Needed Resources.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1