Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Sensitivity of Individual and Composite Test Scores from the Cogstate Brief Battery to Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia Due to Alzheimer's Disease
White JP, Schembri A, Prenn-Gologranc C, Ondrus M, Katina S, Novak P, Lim YY, Edgar C et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2023-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background The Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) is a computerized cognitive test battery used commonly to identify cognitive deficits related to Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, AD and normative samples used to understand the sensitivity of the CBB to AD in the clinic have been limited, as have the outcome measures studied. Objective This study investigated the sensitivity of CBB outcomes, including potential composite scores, to cognitive impairment in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia due to AD, in carefully selected samples. Methods Samples consisted of 4,871 cognitively unimpaired adults and 184 adults who met clinical criteria for MCI (Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) = 0.5) or dementia (CDR > 0.5) due to AD and CBB naive. Speed and accuracy measures from each test were examined, and theoretically- and statistically-derived composites were created. Sensitivity and specificity of classification of cognitive impairment were compared between outcomes. Results Individual CBB measures of learning and working memory showed high discriminability for AD-related cognitive impairment for CDR 0.5 (AUCs ∼ 0.79-0.88), and CDR > 0.5 (AUCs ∼ 0.89-0.96) groups. Discrimination ability for theoretically derived CBB composite measures was high, particularly for the Learning and Working Memory (LWM) composite (CDR 0.5 AUC = 0.90, CDR > 0.5 AUC = 0.97). As expected, statistically optimized linear composite measures showed strong discrimination abilities albeit similar to the LWM composite. Conclusions In older adults, the CBB is effective for discriminating cognitive impairment due to MCI or AD-dementia from unimpaired cognition with the LWM composite providing the strongest sensitivity.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
White, J. P., Schembri, A., Prenn-Gologranc, C., Ondrus, M., Katina, S., Novak, P., et al. (2023). Sensitivity of Individual and Composite Test Scores from the Cogstate Brief Battery to Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia Due to Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-230352
Vancouver
White JP, Schembri A, Prenn-Gologranc C, Ondrus M, Katina S, Novak P, et al. Sensitivity of Individual and Composite Test Scores from the Cogstate Brief Battery to Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia Due to Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2023. doi:10.3233/jad-230352. PMID: 38007647.
BibTeX
@article{white2023-38007647,
author = {White, J. P. and Schembri, A. and Prenn-Gologranc, C. and Ondrus, M. and Katina, S. and Novak, P. and Lim, Y. Y. and Edgar, C. and others},
title = {{Sensitivity of Individual and Composite Test Scores from the Cogstate Brief Battery to Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia Due to Alzheimer's Disease}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.3233/jad-230352},
pmid = {38007647},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-230352}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results Individual CBB measures of learning and working memory showed high discriminability for AD-related cognitive impairment for CDR 0.5 (AUCs ∼ 0.79-0.88), and CDR > 0.5 (AUCs ∼ 0.89-0.96) groups.
Study details
- Participants184
- Effect sizeAUC = 0.90; AUC = 0.97
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 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 (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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 184 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 38007647) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| 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 “battery”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “battery”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.