Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Correlation analysis between subtest scores of CERAD-K and a newly developed tablet computer-based digital cognitive test (Inbrain CST)
Na S, Seo SW, Kim YJ, Yoo H, Lee ES.. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2023-06-29
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction The prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias is increasing; therefore, identifying individuals at risk for dementia is crucial. Traditional neuropsychological assessments are expensive and time-consuming; however, computerized cognitive testing is becoming popular in clinical and research settings, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between the computerized cognitive test, Inbrain cognitive screening test (CST), and the traditional neuropsychological battery, the consortium to establish a registry for Alzheimer's disease assessment packet (CERAD-K). Methods We enrolled 166 participants from five districts in Republic of Korea, including cognitively unimpaired individuals and those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) diagnosed by experienced neurologists. We used the Inbrain CST and CERAD-K to evaluate the cognitive function of the participants, and the scores of each subtest of the Inbrain CST and CERAD-K were compared. Results A significant correlation was found between the Inbrain CST and CERAD-K subtests. Furthermore, multivariate analysis revealed a significant correlation between the Inbrain CST and the CERAD-K test pairs after adjusting for age, educational level, and sex. Discussion In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the Inbrain CST is a reliable tool for detecting cognitive impairment in cognitively unimpaired individuals and patients with MCI, because it has a high correlation and agreement with CERAD-K. Therefore, the Inbrain CST can be a useful, time-efficient, and cost-effective computer-based cognitive test for individuals at risk for cognitive impairment.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Na, S., Seo, S. W., Kim, Y. J., Yoo, H., & Lee, E. S. (2023). Correlation analysis between subtest scores of CERAD-K and a newly developed tablet computer-based digital cognitive test (Inbrain CST). Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1178324
Vancouver
Na S, Seo SW, Kim YJ, Yoo H, Lee ES. Correlation analysis between subtest scores of CERAD-K and a newly developed tablet computer-based digital cognitive test (Inbrain CST). Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2023. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2023.1178324. PMID: 37455932.
BibTeX
@article{na2023-37455932,
author = {Na, S. and Seo, S. W. and Kim, Y. J. and Yoo, H. and Lee, E. S.},
title = {{Correlation analysis between subtest scores of CERAD-K and a newly developed tablet computer-based digital cognitive test (Inbrain CST)}},
journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.3389/fnagi.2023.1178324},
pmid = {37455932},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1178324}
}
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
- Results A significant correlation was found between the Inbrain CST and CERAD-K subtests.
- Furthermore, multivariate analysis revealed a significant correlation between the Inbrain CST and the CERAD-K test pairs after adjusting for age, educational level, and sex.
- Discussion In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the Inbrain CST is a reliable tool for detecting cognitive impairment in cognitively unimpaired individuals and patients with MCI, because it has a high correlation and agreement with CERAD-K.
Study details
- Participants166
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience) |
| 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 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 166 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 37455932) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 tagged “tablet”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “tablet”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.