Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
The Mini-Cog as a screen for dementia: validation in a population-based sample
Borson S, Scanlan JM, Chen P, Ganguli M.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2003-10-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives To test the Mini-Cog, a brief cognitive screening test, in an epidemiological study of dementia in older Americans. Design A population-based post hoc examination of the sensitivity and specificity of the Mini-Cog for detecting dementia in an existing data set. Setting The Monongahela Valley in Western Pennsylvania. Participants A random sample of 1,119 older adults enrolled in the Monongahela Valley Independent Elders Survey (MoVIES). Measurements The effectiveness of the Mini-Cog in detecting independently diagnosed dementia was compared with that of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and a standardized neuropsychological battery. Results The Mini-Cog, scored by an algorithm as "possibly impaired" or "probably normal," and the MMSE, at a cutpoint of 25, had similar sensitivity (76% vs 79%) and specificity (89% vs 88%) for dementia, comparable with that achieved using a conventional neuropsychological battery (75% sensitivity, 90% specificity). Conclusion When applied post hoc to an existing population, the Mini-Cog was as effective in detecting dementia as longer screening and assessment instruments. Its brevity is a distinct advantage when the goal is to improve identification of older adults in a population who may be cognitively impaired. Prior evidence of good performance in a multiethnic community-based sample further supports its validity in the ethnolinguistically diverse populations of the United States in which widely used cognitive screens often fail.
Key findings
- Measurements The effectiveness of the Mini-Cog in detecting independently diagnosed dementia was compared with that of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and a standardized neuropsychological battery.
- Results The Mini-Cog, scored by an algorithm as "possibly impaired" or "probably normal," and the MMSE, at a cutpoint of 25, had similar sensitivity (76% vs 79%) and specificity (89% vs 88%) for dementia, comparable with that achieved using a conventional neuropsychological battery (75% sensitivity, 90% specificity).
Why it matters
This study validated the Mini-Cog as a brief screening test for dementia in a population-based sample. It is a diagnostic tool and does not provide information on treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, 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 (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Journal of the American Geriatrics Society: journal h-index 344 (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 | 1 / 5 | 2003 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 / 7 | Cited 1,351 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 54.0 citations a year over 25 year(s) since 2003 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 4.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 3 / 6 | Cited by 27 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 4 / 4 | Cited 334 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Mary Ganguli: h-index 86 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | University of Washington: institution h-index 3,540 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 14511167) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 53 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51465.x
- PubMed: 14511167
- Original source →
- Free full text: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Borson, S., Scanlan, J. M., Chen, P., & Ganguli, M. (2003). The Mini-Cog as a screen for dementia: validation in a population-based sample. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51465.x
Vancouver
Borson S, Scanlan JM, Chen P, Ganguli M. The Mini-Cog as a screen for dementia: validation in a population-based sample. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2003. doi:10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51465.x. PMID: 14511167.
BibTeX
@article{borson2003-14511167,
author = {Borson, S. and Scanlan, J. M. and Chen, P. and Ganguli, M.},
title = {{The Mini-Cog as a screen for dementia: validation in a population-based sample}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2003},
doi = {10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51465.x},
pmid = {14511167},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51465.x}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
27 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “assessment”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.