Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
A tablet-based multi-dimensional drawing system can effectively distinguish patients with amnestic MCI from healthy individuals
Zhang X, Lv L, Shen J, Chen J, Zhang H, Li Y.. Scientific reports, 2024-01-10
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The population with dementia is expected to rise to 152 million in 2050 due to the aging population worldwide. Therefore, it is significant to identify and intervene in the early stage of dementia. The Rey-Osterreth complex figure (ROCF) test is a visuospatial test scale. Its scoring methods are numerous, time-consuming, and inconsistent, which is unsuitable for wide application as required by the high number of people at risk. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a rapid, objective, and sensitive digital scoring method to detect cognitive dysfunction in the early stage accurately. This study aims to clarify the organizational strategy of aMCI patients to draw complex figures through a multi-dimensional digital evaluation system. At the same time, a rapid, objective, and sensitive digital scoring method is established to replace traditional scoring. The data of 64 subjects (38 aMCI patients and 26 NC individuals) were analyzed in this study. All subjects completed the tablet's Geriatric Complex Figure (GCF) test, including copying, 3-min recall, and 20-min delayed recall, and also underwent a standardized neuropsychological test battery and classic ROCF test. Digital GCF (dGCF) variables and conventional GCF (cGCF) scores were input into the forward stepwise logistic regression model to construct classification models. Finally, ROC curves were made to visualize the difference in the diagnostic value of dGCF variables vs. cGCF scores in categorizing the diagnostic groups. In 20-min delayed recall, aMCI patients' time in air and pause time were longer than NC individuals. Patients with aMCI had more short strokes and poorer ability of detail integration (all p < 0.05). The diagnostic sensitivity of dGCF variables for aMCI patients was 89.47%, slightly higher than cGCF scores (sensitivity: 84.21%). The diagnostic accuracy of both was comparable (dGCF: 70.3%; cGCF: 73.4%). Moreover, combining dGCF variables and cGCF scores could significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy and specificity (accuracy: 78.1%, specificity: 84.62%). At the same time, we construct the regression equations of the two models. Our study shows that dGCF equipment can quantitatively evaluate drawing performance, and its performance is comparable to the time-consuming cGCF score. The regression equation of the model we constructed can well identify patients with aMCI in clinical application. We believe this new technique can be a highly effective screening tool for patients with MCI.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zhang, X., Lv, L., Shen, J., Chen, J., Zhang, H., & Li, Y. (2024). A tablet-based multi-dimensional drawing system can effectively distinguish patients with amnestic MCI from healthy individuals. Scientific reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46710-y
Vancouver
Zhang X, Lv L, Shen J, Chen J, Zhang H, Li Y. A tablet-based multi-dimensional drawing system can effectively distinguish patients with amnestic MCI from healthy individuals. Scientific reports. 2024. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-46710-y. PMID: 38200020.
BibTeX
@article{zhang2024-38200020,
author = {Zhang, X. and Lv, L. and Shen, J. and Chen, J. and Zhang, H. and Li, Y.},
title = {{A tablet-based multi-dimensional drawing system can effectively distinguish patients with amnestic MCI from healthy individuals}},
journal = {Scientific reports},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-023-46710-y},
pmid = {38200020},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46710-y}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Therefore, it is significant to identify and intervene in the early stage of dementia.
- Moreover, combining dGCF variables and cGCF scores could significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy and specificity (accuracy: 78.1%, specificity: 84.62%).
Study details
- Participants64
- Effect size89.47%; 84.21%; 70.3%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, 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 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Scientific reports) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 64 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38200020) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 32 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 100 | — |
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 in Cognitive tests and assessment
109 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.