Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The Brain Health Assessment for Detecting and Diagnosing Neurocognitive Disorders
Possin KL, Moskowitz T, Erlhoff SJ, Rogers KM, Johnson ET, Steele NZR, Higgins JJ, Stiver J et al.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2018-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background/objectives Brief cognitive screens lack the sensitivity to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or support differential diagnoses. The objective of this study was to validate the 10-minute, tablet-based University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Brain Health Assessment (BHA) to overcome these limitations. Design Cross-sectional. Setting UCSF Memory and Aging Center. Participants Older adults (N = 347) (neurologically healthy controls (n = 185), and individuals diagnosed with MCI (n = 99), dementia (n = 42), and as normal with concerns (n = 21)). Measurements The BHA includes subtests of memory, executive function and speed, visuospatial skills, and language and an optional informant survey. Participants completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and criterion-standard neuropsychological tests. Standardized structural 3T brain magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 145 participants. Results At a fixed 85% specificity rate, the BHA had 100% sensitivity to dementia and 84% to MCI; the MoCA had 75% sensitivity to dementia and 25% to MCI. The BHA had 83% sensitivity to MCI likely due to AD and 88% to MCI unlikely due to AD, and the MoCA had 58% sensitivity to MCI likely AD and 24% to MCI unlikely AD. The BHA subtests demonstrated moderate to high correlations with the criterion-standard tests from their respective cognitive domains. Memory test performance correlated with medial temporal lobe volumes; executive and speed with frontal, parietal, and basal ganglia volumes; and visuospatial with right parietal volumes. Conclusion The BHA had excellent combined sensitivity and specificity to detect dementia and MCI, including MCI due to diverse etiologies. The subtests provide efficient, valid measures of neurocognition that are critical in making a differential diagnosis.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Possin, K. L., Moskowitz, T., Erlhoff, S. J., Rogers, K. M., Johnson, E. T., Steele, N. Z. R., et al. (2018). The Brain Health Assessment for Detecting and Diagnosing Neurocognitive Disorders. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15208
Vancouver
Possin KL, Moskowitz T, Erlhoff SJ, Rogers KM, Johnson ET, Steele NZR, et al. The Brain Health Assessment for Detecting and Diagnosing Neurocognitive Disorders. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2018. doi:10.1111/jgs.15208. PMID: 29355911.
BibTeX
@article{possin2018-29355911,
author = {Possin, K. L. and Moskowitz, T. and Erlhoff, S. J. and Rogers, K. M. and Johnson, E. T. and Steele, N. Z. R. and Higgins, J. J. and Stiver, J. and others},
title = {{The Brain Health Assessment for Detecting and Diagnosing Neurocognitive Disorders}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1111/jgs.15208},
pmid = {29355911},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15208}
}
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 At a fixed 85% specificity rate, the BHA had 100% sensitivity to dementia and 84% to MCI; the MoCA had 75% sensitivity to dementia and 25% to MCI.
- The BHA subtests demonstrated moderate to high correlations with the criterion-standard tests from their respective cognitive domains.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants347
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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 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 the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 347 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 29355911) |
| 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 Cognitive tests and assessment
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.