Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Discriminative Power of Seoul Cognitive Status Test in Differentiating Subjective Cognitive Decline, Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia Based on CERAD-K Standards
Moon H, Lee ES, Na S, An D, Shin JS, Na DL, Jang H.. Dementia and neurocognitive disorders, 2024-07-16
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background and purpose We developed a new digital cognitive assessment called Seoul Cognitive Status Test (SCST), formerly called Inbrain Cognitive Screening Test. The purpose of this study was to validate the clinical utility of the SCST by comparing its scores of those with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and dementia diagnosed by the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Packet (CERAD-K). Methods All participants (n=296) who completed the CERAD-K, SCST, and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living tests were included in this study. Total score, cognitive domain scores, and subtest scores of the SCST were compared among the 3 groups (SCD, aMCI, and dementia). Additionally, correlations between SCST and CERAD-K subtests were examined. Results Cognitive domain scores and total score of the SCST showed significant differences among the three groups, with scores being the highest in the order of SCD, aMCI, and dementia ( p <0.001). Most subtests of the SCST also showed higher scores in the order of SCD, aMCI, and dementia ( p <0.001). However, SCD and aMCI groups showed no significant differences in scores of the Phonemic Word Fluency Test ( p =0.083) or Korean Trail Making Test-Elderly version Part A ( p =0.434). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the score of Place Recognition ( p =0.274) of the Word-Place Association Test between aMCI and dementia groups. Conclusions In conclusion, differences in total score, cognitive domain scores, and subtest scores of the SCST among the 3 groups of participants diagnosed using CERAD-K confirm the clinical utility of the SCST for cognitive assessment.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Moon, H., Lee, E. S., Na, S., An, D., Shin, J. S., Na, D. L., et al. (2024). Discriminative Power of Seoul Cognitive Status Test in Differentiating Subjective Cognitive Decline, Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia Based on CERAD-K Standards. Dementia and neurocognitive disorders. https://doi.org/10.12779/dnd.2024.23.3.136
Vancouver
Moon H, Lee ES, Na S, An D, Shin JS, Na DL, et al. Discriminative Power of Seoul Cognitive Status Test in Differentiating Subjective Cognitive Decline, Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia Based on CERAD-K Standards. Dementia and neurocognitive disorders. 2024. doi:10.12779/dnd.2024.23.3.136. PMID: 39113750.
BibTeX
@article{moon2024-39113750,
author = {Moon, H. and Lee, E. S. and Na, S. and An, D. and Shin, J. S. and Na, D. L. and Jang, H.},
title = {{Discriminative Power of Seoul Cognitive Status Test in Differentiating Subjective Cognitive Decline, Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia Based on CERAD-K Standards}},
journal = {Dementia and neurocognitive disorders},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.12779/dnd.2024.23.3.136},
pmid = {39113750},
url = {https://doi.org/10.12779/dnd.2024.23.3.136}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Cognitive domain scores and total score of the SCST showed significant differences among the three groups, with scores being the highest in the order of SCD, aMCI, and dementia ( p <0.001).
- However, SCD and aMCI groups showed no significant differences in scores of the Phonemic Word Fluency Test ( p =0.083) or Korean Trail Making Test-Elderly version Part A ( p =0.434).
- Additionally, there was no significant difference in the score of Place Recognition ( p =0.274) of the Word-Place Association Test between aMCI and dementia groups.
- Conclusions In conclusion, differences in total score, cognitive domain scores, and subtest scores of the SCST among the 3 groups of participants diagnosed using CERAD-K confirm the clinical utility of the SCST for cognitive assessment.
Study details
- Participants296
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / 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 multicenter 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 (Dementia and neurocognitive disorders) |
| 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 | 296 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39113750) |
| 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 tagged “differentiating”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “differentiating”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.