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.

41/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

The MMSE-2 demonstrated robust performance in differentiating participants across Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) stages and CDR-Sum of Boxes scores. It exhibited excellent internal consistency, high test-retest reliability, and strong interrater reliability. Concurrent validity with the original MMSE and other neuropsychological measures was also high. The MMSE-2 showed relatively high sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing normal cognitive aging, VaMCI, and VD. The MMSE-2 is a valid and reliable tool for assessing cognitive impairment in patients with VCI in a Korean population. While its specificity in differentiating VaMCI from healthy aging remains relatively modest, the MMSE-2 demonstrates superior sensitivity in detecting VaMCI compared to the original MMSE. These findings suggest that the MMSE-2 is a valuable screening instrument for identifying early cognitive changes associated with VCI.

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

APA 7th

Baek, M. J., Park, Y. H., & Kim, S. (2025). The Validity and Reliability of the Mini-Mental State Examination-2 for Detecting Vascular Mild Cognitive Impairment and Vascular Dementia in a Korean Population. Journal of Korean Medical Science. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e207

Vancouver

Baek MJ, Park YH, Kim S. The Validity and Reliability of the Mini-Mental State Examination-2 for Detecting Vascular Mild Cognitive Impairment and Vascular Dementia in a Korean Population. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 2025. doi:10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e207. PMID: 40827323.

BibTeX

@article{baek2025-40827323,
  author  = {Baek, Min Jae and Park, Young Ho and Kim, SangYun},
  title   = {{The Validity and Reliability of the Mini-Mental State Examination-2 for Detecting Vascular Mild Cognitive Impairment and Vascular Dementia in a Korean Population}},
  journal = {Journal of Korean Medical Science},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e207},
  pmid    = {40827323},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e207}
}

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

The MMSE-2 demonstrated robust performance in differentiating participants across Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) stages and CDR-Sum of Boxes scores.
It exhibited excellent internal consistency, high test-retest reliability, and strong interrater reliability.
Concurrent validity with the original MMSE and other neuropsychological measures was also high.
The MMSE-2 showed relatively high sensitivity and specificity in distinguishing normal cognitive aging, VaMCI, and VD.
The MMSE-2 is a valid and reliable tool for assessing cognitive impairment in patients with VCI in a Korean population.

Why it matters

The MMSE-2 was found to be a valid and reliable tool for detecting vascular mild cognitive impairment and vascular dementia in a Korean population. This is a screening tool and does not provide a treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

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

Study details

Participants66
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 41/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Korean Medical Science)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	Journal of Korean Medical Science: journal h-index 111 (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	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	66 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	1 / 7	Cited 4 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	1.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 2.5× 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	1 / 4	Cited 4 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author SangYun Kim: h-index 53 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	Seoul National University: institution h-index 1,053 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40827323)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	41 / 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 →