Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Digital Screening for Cognitive Impairment - A Proof of Concept Study
Bloniecki V, Hagman G, Ryden M, Kivipelto M.. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2021-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Due to an ageing demographic and rapid increase of cognitive impairment and dementia, combined with potential disease-modifying drugs and other interventions in the pipeline, there is a need for the development of accurate, accessible and efficient cognitive screening instruments, focused on early-stage detection of neurodegenerative disorders. Objective In this proof of concept report, we examine the validity of a newly developed digital cognitive test, the Geras Solutions Cognitive Test (GCST) and compare its accuracy against the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Methods 106 patients, referred to the memory clinic, Karolinska University Hospital, due to memory complaints were included. All patients were assessed for presence of neurodegenerative disorder in accordance with standard investigative procedures. 66% were diagnosed with subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), 25% with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 9% fulfilled criteria for dementia. All patients were administered both MoCA and GSCT. Descriptive statistics and specificity, sensitivity and ROC curves were established for both test. Results Mean score differed significantly between all diagnostic subgroups for both GSCT and MoCA (p<0.05). GSCT total test time differed significantly between all diagnostic subgroups (p<0.05). Overall, MoCA showed a sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity of 0.54 at a cut-off of <=26 while GSCT displayed 0.91 and 0.55 in sensitivity and specificity respectively at a cut-off of <=45. Conclusion This report suggests that GSCT is a viable cognitive screening instrument for both MCI and dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bloniecki, V., Hagman, G., Ryden, M., & Kivipelto, M. (2021). Digital Screening for Cognitive Impairment - A Proof of Concept Study. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2021.2
Vancouver
Bloniecki V, Hagman G, Ryden M, Kivipelto M. Digital Screening for Cognitive Impairment - A Proof of Concept Study. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2021. doi:10.14283/jpad.2021.2. PMID: 33569558.
BibTeX
@article{bloniecki2021-33569558,
author = {Bloniecki, V. and Hagman, G. and Ryden, M. and Kivipelto, M.},
title = {{Digital Screening for Cognitive Impairment - A Proof of Concept Study}},
journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.14283/jpad.2021.2},
pmid = {33569558},
url = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2021.2}
}
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 Mean score differed significantly between all diagnostic subgroups for both GSCT and MoCA (p<0.05).
- GSCT total test time differed significantly between all diagnostic subgroups (p<0.05).
- Overall, MoCA showed a sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity of 0.54 at a cut-off of <=26 while GSCT displayed 0.91 and 0.55 in sensitivity and specificity respectively at a cut-off of <=45.
- Conclusion This report suggests that GSCT is a viable cognitive screening instrument for both MCI and dementia.
Study details
- Participants106
- 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 (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease) |
| 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 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 106 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 33569558) |
| 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 “cognitive-impairment”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-impairment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.