A mobile interactive cognitive self-assessment scale for screening cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Age and ageing Pub Date : 2025-01-25 DOI:10.1093/ageing/afae293
Kexin Xie, Juan Huang, Ting Chen, Dan Li, Tianxinyu Xia, Min Chu, Yue Cui, Mei Tang, Dantao Peng, Jingtong Wang, Jianling Liu, Xiaojuan Chen, Weiwei Cui, Li Liu, Yingtao Wang, Jianbing Liu, Fang Li, Liyong Wu
{"title":"A mobile interactive cognitive self-assessment scale for screening cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease","authors":"Kexin Xie, Juan Huang, Ting Chen, Dan Li, Tianxinyu Xia, Min Chu, Yue Cui, Mei Tang, Dantao Peng, Jingtong Wang, Jianling Liu, Xiaojuan Chen, Weiwei Cui, Li Liu, Yingtao Wang, Jianbing Liu, Fang Li, Liyong Wu","doi":"10.1093/ageing/afae293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background A mobile cognition scale for community screening in cognitive impairment with rigorous validation is in paucity. We aimed to develop a digital scale that overcame low education for community screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and AD. Methods A mobile cognitive self-assessment scale (CogSAS) was designed through the Delphi process, which is feasible for the older population with low education. In Phase 1, 518 clinically diagnosed participants were subjected to optimise the items. In Phase 2, the scale was validated in 358 participants with cognitively unimpaired and 396 participants of clinically diagnosed MCI and dementia for reliability, validity and diagnostic accuracy. In Phase 3, specificity and sensitivity were tested for biologically diagnosed participants of 38 with cognitively unimpaired and 45 with MCI and dementia due to AD according to the amyloid, tau, neurodegeneration classification system. Results The CogSAS was a three-task mobile scale testing memory and executive function. In Phase 2, the internal consistency was 0.81, and the test–retest reliability was 0.82. The construct validity was 0.74, and the criterion validity was 0.77. The sensitivity and specificity for discriminating clinically diagnosed participants with MCI and dementia from cognitively unimpaired were 0.90 and 0.67, respectively. For discriminating biologically diagnosed MCI and dementia due to AD from cognitively unimpaired, the sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 and 0.78, respectively. Conclusions The CogSAS has good reliability, validity and feasibility, showing a high sensitivity and specificity both in the community and the clinic, identifying biologically diagnosed MCI and dementia due to AD.","PeriodicalId":7682,"journal":{"name":"Age and ageing","volume":"87 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Age and ageing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afae293","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background A mobile cognition scale for community screening in cognitive impairment with rigorous validation is in paucity. We aimed to develop a digital scale that overcame low education for community screening for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and AD. Methods A mobile cognitive self-assessment scale (CogSAS) was designed through the Delphi process, which is feasible for the older population with low education. In Phase 1, 518 clinically diagnosed participants were subjected to optimise the items. In Phase 2, the scale was validated in 358 participants with cognitively unimpaired and 396 participants of clinically diagnosed MCI and dementia for reliability, validity and diagnostic accuracy. In Phase 3, specificity and sensitivity were tested for biologically diagnosed participants of 38 with cognitively unimpaired and 45 with MCI and dementia due to AD according to the amyloid, tau, neurodegeneration classification system. Results The CogSAS was a three-task mobile scale testing memory and executive function. In Phase 2, the internal consistency was 0.81, and the test–retest reliability was 0.82. The construct validity was 0.74, and the criterion validity was 0.77. The sensitivity and specificity for discriminating clinically diagnosed participants with MCI and dementia from cognitively unimpaired were 0.90 and 0.67, respectively. For discriminating biologically diagnosed MCI and dementia due to AD from cognitively unimpaired, the sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 and 0.78, respectively. Conclusions The CogSAS has good reliability, validity and feasibility, showing a high sensitivity and specificity both in the community and the clinic, identifying biologically diagnosed MCI and dementia due to AD.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Age and ageing
Age and ageing 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
6.00%
发文量
796
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Age and Ageing is an international journal publishing refereed original articles and commissioned reviews on geriatric medicine and gerontology. Its range includes research on ageing and clinical, epidemiological, and psychological aspects of later life.
期刊最新文献
The effect of perioperative cognitive training on postoperative delirium in older patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised trial Process evaluation of an intervention to reduce sleep problems in people living with dementia in nursing homes: a mixed-methods study Geriatric evaluation and management inpatients spend little time participating in physically, cognitively or socially meaningful activity: a time–motion analysis Can ambulatory blood pressure biomarkers predict future falls amongst older people? Risk of new-onset dementia following COVID-19 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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:481959085
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