Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Diagnostic Value of a Tablet-Based Drawing Task for Discrimination of Patients in the Early Course of Alzheimer's Disease from Healthy Individuals
Müller S, Preische O, Heymann P, Elbing U, Laske C.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2017-01-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
There is a considerable delay in the diagnosis of dementia, which may reduce the effectiveness of available treatments. Thus, it is of great interest to develop fast and easy to perform, non-invasive and non-expensive diagnostic measures for the early detection of cognitive impairment and dementia. Here we investigate movement kinematics between 20 patients with early dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (eDAT), 30 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and 20 cognitively healthy control (HC) individuals while copying a three-dimensional house using a digitizing tablet. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and logistic regression analyzes have been conducted to explore whether alterations in movement kinematics could be used to discriminate patients with aMCI and eDAT from healthy individuals. Time-in-air (i.e., transitioning from one stroke to the next without touching the surface) differed significantly between patients with aMCI, eDAT, and HCs demonstrating an excellent sensitivity and a moderate specificity to discriminate aMCI subjects from normal elderly and an excellent sensitivity and specificity to discriminate patients affected by mild Alzheimer's disease from healthy individuals. Time-on-surface (i.e., time while stylus is touching the surface) differed only between HCs and patients with eDAT but not between HCs and patients with aMCI. Furthermore, total-time (i.e., time-in-air plus time-on-surface) did not differ between patients with aMCI and early dementia due to AD. Modern digitizing devices offer the opportunity to measure a broad range of visuoconstructive abilities that may be used as a fast and easy to perform screening instrument for the early detection of cognitive impairment and dementia in primary care.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Müller, S., Preische, O., Heymann, P., Elbing, U., & Laske, C. (2017). Diagnostic Value of a Tablet-Based Drawing Task for Discrimination of Patients in the Early Course of Alzheimer's Disease from Healthy Individuals. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160921
Vancouver
Müller S, Preische O, Heymann P, Elbing U, Laske C. Diagnostic Value of a Tablet-Based Drawing Task for Discrimination of Patients in the Early Course of Alzheimer's Disease from Healthy Individuals. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2017. doi:10.3233/jad-160921. PMID: 27858717.
BibTeX
@article{muller2017-27858717,
author = {Müller, S. and Preische, O. and Heymann, P. and Elbing, U. and Laske, C.},
title = {{Diagnostic Value of a Tablet-Based Drawing Task for Discrimination of Patients in the Early Course of Alzheimer's Disease from Healthy Individuals}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.3233/jad-160921},
pmid = {27858717},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160921}
}
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
- Time-in-air (i.e., transitioning from one stroke to the next without touching the surface) differed significantly between patients with aMCI, eDAT, and HCs demonstrating an excellent sensitivity and a moderate specificity to discriminate aMCI subjects from normal elderly and an excellent sensitivity and specificity to discriminate patients affected by mild Alzheimer's disease from healthy individuals.
Study details
- Participants20
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 20 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 27858717) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.