Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Peruvian validation and standardization of the TabCAT-brain health assessment
Andrés Muñoz-Najar, Manuel Montemurro, María Del Carmen Tejada, Claudia Rivera-Fernández, Miguel Sánchez-Fernández, Nilton Custodio, Katherine L Possin, Elena Tsoy et al.. Frontiers in public health, 2025-08-29
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
By incorporating sex, place of residence, age, and years of education as covariates, the TabCAT-BHA demonstrated greater accuracy in detecting cognitive impairment (AUC = 75.3%) compared to the MMSE (AUC = 66.4%) and RUDAS (AUC = 71.4%). After incorporating only significant sociodemographic predictors, TabCAT-BHA obtained better AUC (77.4%) compared to MMSE (66.6%) and RUDAS (71.9%). The TabCAT-BHA proves to be a valid tool for detecting cognitive impairment, and incorporating sociodemographic factors improves its accuracy in marginalized settings of Peru.
Key findings
- By incorporating sex, place of residence, age, and years of education as covariates, the TabCAT-BHA demonstrated greater accuracy in detecting cognitive impairment (AUC = 75.3%) compared to the MMSE (AUC = 66.4%) and RUDAS (AUC = 71.4%).
- After incorporating only significant sociodemographic predictors, TabCAT-BHA obtained better AUC (77.4%) compared to MMSE (66.6%) and RUDAS (71.9%).
- The TabCAT-BHA proves to be a valid tool for detecting cognitive impairment, and incorporating sociodemographic factors improves its accuracy in marginalized settings of Peru.
Study details
- Effect sizeAUC = 75.3; AUC = 66.4; AUC = 71.4
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 56 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 public health) |
| 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 | 2025 — 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 | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 40951388) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 27 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Muñoz-Najar, A., Montemurro, M., Tejada, M. D. C., Rivera-Fernández, C., Sánchez-Fernández, M., Custodio, N., et al. (2025). Peruvian validation and standardization of the TabCAT-brain health assessment. Frontiers in public health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1600131
Vancouver
Muñoz-Najar A, Montemurro M, Tejada MDC, Rivera-Fernández C, Sánchez-Fernández M, Custodio N, et al. Peruvian validation and standardization of the TabCAT-brain health assessment. Frontiers in public health. 2025. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1600131. PMID: 40951388.
BibTeX
@article{munoznajar2025-40951388,
author = {Muñoz-Najar, Andrés and Montemurro, Manuel and Tejada, María Del Carmen and Rivera-Fernández, Claudia and Sánchez-Fernández, Miguel and Custodio, Nilton and Possin, Katherine L and Tsoy, Elena and others},
title = {{Peruvian validation and standardization of the TabCAT-brain health assessment}},
journal = {Frontiers in public health},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.3389/fpubh.2025.1600131},
pmid = {40951388},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1600131}
}