Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
A voice recognition-based digital cognitive screener for dementia detection in the community: Development and validation study
Xuhao Zhao, Ruofei Hu, Haoxuan Wen, Guohai Xu, Ting Pang, Xindi He, Yaping Zhang, Ji Zhang et al.. Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022-07-22
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
A total of 103 participants completed all investigations and were included in the analysis. Administration time of the DCS was between 5.1-7.3 min. No significant difference (p > 0.05) in test scores or administration time was found between 2 assessment settings (polyclinic or community center). The DCS showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.73), test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.69, p < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.84). Area under the curves (AUCs) of the DCS were 0.95 (0.90, 0.99) and 0.77 (0.67, 086) for dementia and MCI detection, respectively. At the optimal cut-off (7/8), the DCS showed excellent sensitivity (100%) and good specificity (80%) for dementia detection. The DCS is a feasible, reliable and valid digital dementia screening tool for older adults. The applicability of the DCS in a larger-scale community-based screening stratified by age and education levels warrants further investigation.
Key findings
- A total of 103 participants completed all investigations and were included in the analysis.
- Administration time of the DCS was between 5.1-7.3 min.
- No significant difference (p > 0.05) in test scores or administration time was found between 2 assessment settings (polyclinic or community center).
- The DCS showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.73), test-retest reliability (Pearson r = 0.69, p < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.84).
- Area under the curves (AUCs) of the DCS were 0.95 (0.90, 0.99) and 0.77 (0.67, 086) for dementia and MCI detection, respectively.
Study details
- Participants103
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in psychiatry) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 103 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 35935417) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 28 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Zhao, X., Hu, R., Wen, H., Xu, G., Pang, T., He, X., et al. (2022). A voice recognition-based digital cognitive screener for dementia detection in the community: Development and validation study. Frontiers in psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.899729
Vancouver
Zhao X, Hu R, Wen H, Xu G, Pang T, He X, et al. A voice recognition-based digital cognitive screener for dementia detection in the community: Development and validation study. Frontiers in psychiatry. 2022. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.899729. PMID: 35935417.
BibTeX
@article{zhao2022-35935417,
author = {Zhao, Xuhao and Hu, Ruofei and Wen, Haoxuan and Xu, Guohai and Pang, Ting and He, Xindi and Zhang, Yaping and Zhang, Ji and others},
title = {{A voice recognition-based digital cognitive screener for dementia detection in the community: Development and validation study}},
journal = {Frontiers in psychiatry},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyt.2022.899729},
pmid = {35935417},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.899729}
}