This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

37/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 37 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a stage between normal cognition and dementia, and timely diagnosis of this condition offers the opportunity for effective interventions to slow down the progression to dementia. The Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) are widely used tests for MCI screening. The Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) is a computer-based cognitive battery designed to reduce the influence of language and the possibility of examiner error. This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CANTAB in patients with MCI. Patients with a MoCA score of 25 or less were considered to be in the MoCA-defined MCI group, which comprised 23.1% of participants (15 out of 65). The Paired Associates Learning (PAL)-mean-error-to-success had the most area under the curve in the ROC curve (0.80; 95%CI: 0.66-0.95; p-value<0.01) and optimum cut-off for MCI diagnosis was 5.8 (Sensitivity: 77%; Specificity: 74%) based on the Youden index. Although the small sample size may have influenced the results, the findings suggest that the PAL demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing participants with MoCA-defined MCI.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Nabizadeh, Y., Talebi, M., Gholipour-khalili, E., Ashayeri, H., Talebi, M., & Naseri, A. (2026). Sensitivity and specificity of the CANTAB Paired Associates Learning test for identifying mild cognitive impairment. Acta Psychologica. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107597

Vancouver

Nabizadeh Y, Talebi M, Gholipour-khalili E, Ashayeri H, Talebi M, Naseri A. Sensitivity and specificity of the CANTAB Paired Associates Learning test for identifying mild cognitive impairment. Acta Psychologica. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107597. PMID: 42567065.

BibTeX

@article{nabizadeh2026-42567065,
  author  = {Nabizadeh, Yashar and Talebi, Malihe and Gholipour-khalili, Elnaz and Ashayeri, Hamidreza and Talebi, Mahnaz and Naseri, Amirreza},
  title   = {{Sensitivity and specificity of the CANTAB Paired Associates Learning test for identifying mild cognitive impairment}},
  journal = {Acta Psychologica},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107597},
  pmid    = {42567065},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.107597}
}

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

Although the small sample size may have influenced the results, the findings suggest that the PAL demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing participants with MoCA-defined MCI.

Why it matters

This study found that the CANTAB Paired Associates Learning test showed good diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing mild cognitive impairment, though the small sample size may have influenced the results. It is about cognitive screening, not about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →

Study details

Effect size23.1%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 37/100

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.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Acta Psychologica)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Acta Psychologica: journal h-index 187 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 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	1 / 7	Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.5 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 4.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	1 / 4	Last-listed author Amirreza Naseri: h-index 19 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	0 / 3	Tabriz University of Medical Sciences: institution h-index 335 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42567065)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	37 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

Also tagged “examination”

840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “examination”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →