Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Automated detection of cognitive impairment in clinical practice
Busch RM, Hogue O, Postle AF, Floden DP.. Journal of neurology, 2024-06-04
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective Cognitive impairment is now recognized as an impending public health crisis. About one-third of adults are concerned about their cognition, and the prevalence of objective cognitive impairment is much higher among those with neurological disorders. Existing screening tools are narrowly focused on detecting dementia in older adults and must be clinician-administered and scored, making them impractical for many neurology practices. This study examined the utility of a brief, self-administered, computerized cognitive screening tool, the Brief Assessment of Cognitive Health (BACH), in identifying cognitive impairment in adults. Methods 912 adults (ages 18-84) completed BACH and a neuropsychological battery. Multivariable models were developed to provide a BACH index score reflecting the probability of cognitive impairment for individual patients. Predictive accuracy was compared to that of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a subset of 160 older adults from a Memory Disorders clinic. Results The final multivariable model showed good accuracy in identifying cognitively impaired individuals (c = 0·77). Compared to MoCA, BACH had superior predictive accuracy in identifying older patients with cognitive impairment (c = 0·79 vs. 0·67) as well as differentiating those with MCI or dementia from those without cognitive impairment (c = 0·86 vs. c = 0·67). Conclusions Results suggest that cognitive impairment can be identified in adults using a brief, self-administered, automated cognitive screening tool, and BACH provides several advantages over existing screeners: self-administered; automatic scoring; immediate results in health record; easily interpretable score; utility in wide range of patients; and flags for treatable factors that may contribute to cognitive complaints (i.e., depression, sleep problems, and stress).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Busch, R. M., Hogue, O., Postle, A. F., & Floden, D. P. (2024). Automated detection of cognitive impairment in clinical practice. Journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-024-12444-8
Vancouver
Busch RM, Hogue O, Postle AF, Floden DP. Automated detection of cognitive impairment in clinical practice. Journal of neurology. 2024. doi:10.1007/s00415-024-12444-8. PMID: 38834701.
BibTeX
@article{busch2024-38834701,
author = {Busch, R. M. and Hogue, O. and Postle, A. F. and Floden, D. P.},
title = {{Automated detection of cognitive impairment in clinical practice}},
journal = {Journal of neurology},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1007/s00415-024-12444-8},
pmid = {38834701},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-024-12444-8}
}
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
- Predictive accuracy was compared to that of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a subset of 160 older adults from a Memory Disorders clinic.
- Results The final multivariable model showed good accuracy in identifying cognitively impaired individuals (c = 0·77).
- Compared to MoCA, BACH had superior predictive accuracy in identifying older patients with cognitive impairment (c = 0·79 vs. 0·67) as well as differentiating those with MCI or dementia from those without cognitive impairment (c = 0·86 vs. c = 0·67).
- Conclusions Results suggest that cognitive impairment can be identified in adults using a brief, self-administered, automated cognitive screening tool, and BACH provides several advantages over existing screeners: self-administered; automatic scoring; immediate results in health record; easily interpretable score; utility in wide range of patients; and flags for treatable factors that may contribute to cognitive complaints (i.e., depression, sleep problems, and stress).
Study details
- Participants912
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of neurology) |
| 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 | 2 / 4 | 912 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 38834701) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also in Cognitive tests and assessment
102 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.