Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
A study on the Mini-cog scale in the general screening of cognitive status among the elderly in Putian city
Zhang L, Lin Z, Cai Y, Huang B, Lin P, Zhang Y, Xue L, Huang W.. Research Square, 2026-08-03
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Early detection of cognitive impairment is critical to reduce dementia burden, but feasible screening tools are lacking in dialect-dominant, illiterate, resource-limited regions. The Mini-cog is a brief, simple instrument; its performance in such populations remains unclear. Methods This cross-sectional study enrolled 450 elderly (≥ 60 years) Putian dialect speakers in Fujian Province. Participants underwent Mini-cog, Hong Kong Brief Cognitive Test (HKBC), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and comprehensive neuropsychological batteries. Final diagnoses (cognitively normal [CN], mild cognitive impairment [MCI], dementia) followed NIA-AA 2011 criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated and compared overall and by education (≤ 6 vs. >6 years). Results Among 450 participants, 161 were CN, 158 MCI, and 131 dementia. For MCI vs. CN, Mini‑Cog showed sensitivity 90.51%, specificity 95.65%, AUC 0.90—significantly outperforming HKBC (AUC 0.82, P = 0.0027) and MoCA (AUC 0.84, P = 0.02). For dementia vs. CN, all three tools performed excellently (AUC ≥ 0.95, P > 0.05). In the lower-education subgroup (≤ 6 years), Mini-cog maintained robust MCI detection (AUC 0.90) while HKBC and MoCA had lower AUCs (0.87 and 0.85). Mini-cog achieved 100% sensitivity for dementia across all education strata. Conclusions In dialect-dominant, educationally diverse elderly, Mini-cog provides superior diagnostic accuracy for MCI versus HKBC and MoCA, and comparable accuracy for dementia. Its brevity, minimal literacy requirement, and dialect insensitivity make it ideal for large-scale cognitive screening in resource-limited, linguistically complex settings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zhang, L., Lin, Z., Cai, Y., Huang, B., Lin, P., Zhang, Y., et al. (2026). A study on the Mini-cog scale in the general screening of cognitive status among the elderly in Putian city. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9984074/v1
Vancouver
Zhang L, Lin Z, Cai Y, Huang B, Lin P, Zhang Y, et al. A study on the Mini-cog scale in the general screening of cognitive status among the elderly in Putian city. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9984074/v1.
BibTeX
@article{zhang2026-4f6cb4d0,
author = {Zhang, L. and Lin, Z. and Cai, Y. and Huang, B. and Lin, P. and Zhang, Y. and Xue, L. and Huang, W.},
title = {{A study on the Mini-cog scale in the general screening of cognitive status among the elderly in Putian city}},
journal = {Research Square},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-9984074/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9984074/v1}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated and compared overall and by education (≤ 6 vs. >6 years).
- Results Among 450 participants, 161 were CN, 158 MCI, and 131 dementia.
- CN, Mini‑Cog showed sensitivity 90.51%, specificity 95.65%, AUC 0.90—significantly outperforming HKBC (AUC 0.82, P = 0.0027) and MoCA (AUC 0.84, P = 0.02).
- Conclusions In dialect-dominant, educationally diverse elderly, Mini-cog provides superior diagnostic accuracy for MCI versus HKBC and MoCA, and comparable accuracy for dementia.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants450
- Effect size90.51%; 95.65%; AUC 0.90
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 40 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 450 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 25 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.