Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Development and validation of cognitive ageing risk score (CARS) for early detection of subtle cognitive deficits in older people
Fung AWT, Lee ATC, Ma SL, Lam LCW.. BMC geriatrics, 2024-03-21
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Early cognitive deficits commonly seen in older people have not been well defined and managed in primary care. The objectives are (1) to develop and validate a new risk score to estimate the risk of dementia in Chinese older population; and (2) to evaluate the use of risk score in conjunction with cognitive screening in detecting early cognitive deficits in community older people. Methods A development cohort of 306 cognitive healthy older adults aged 60 or above were followed for 6 years. A CARS was constructed using the estimated coefficients of risk factors associated with dementia at follow up. Validation was carried out in another five-year cohort of 383 older adults. The usefulness of CARS in detecting early cognitive deficits was evaluated. Results Risk factors include older age, male gender, low level of education, poorly controlled diabetes, prolonged sleep latency, fewer mind body or light exercise, loneliness, and being apolipoprotein e4 carriers. A cutoff of CARS at -1.3 had a sensitivity of 83.9% and a specificity of 75.4% to predict dementia. The area under curve was 82.5% in the development cohort. Early cognitive deficits were characterized by impaired retention (p <.001, 95% CI 0.2-0.9) and attention (p =.012, 95% CI 0.1-0.8). Conclusion The CARS can be used as a standard risk assessment of dementia or in conjunction with a computerized cognitive screening to evaluate a full cognitive profile for detecting early cognitive deficits. The result put forward the integration of risk algorithm into smart healthcare system to provide personalized lifestyle interventions.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Fung, A. W. T., Lee, A. T. C., Ma, S. L., & Lam, L. C. W. (2024). Development and validation of cognitive ageing risk score (CARS) for early detection of subtle cognitive deficits in older people. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04879-5
Vancouver
Fung AWT, Lee ATC, Ma SL, Lam LCW. Development and validation of cognitive ageing risk score (CARS) for early detection of subtle cognitive deficits in older people. BMC geriatrics. 2024. doi:10.1186/s12877-024-04879-5. PMID: 38515012.
BibTeX
@article{fung2024-38515012,
author = {Fung, A. W. T. and Lee, A. T. C. and Ma, S. L. and Lam, L. C. W.},
title = {{Development and validation of cognitive ageing risk score (CARS) for early detection of subtle cognitive deficits in older people}},
journal = {BMC geriatrics},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1186/s12877-024-04879-5},
pmid = {38515012},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04879-5}
}
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
- A CARS was constructed using the estimated coefficients of risk factors associated with dementia at follow up.
- Results Risk factors include older age, male gender, low level of education, poorly controlled diabetes, prolonged sleep latency, fewer mind body or light exercise, loneliness, and being apolipoprotein e4 carriers.
- The result put forward the integration of risk algorithm into smart healthcare system to provide personalized lifestyle interventions.
Study details
- Effect size83.9%; 75.4%; 82.5%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people 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 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC geriatrics) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” 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 | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 38515012) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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 tagged “cognitive-deficits”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-deficits”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.