Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Usefulness of CogEvo, a computerized cognitive assessment and training tool, for distinguishing patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from cognitively normal older people
Takechi H, Yoshino H.. Geriatrics & gerontology international, 2020-12-17
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Aim This study aimed to assess whether CogEvo, a computerized cognitive assessment and training tool, could distinguish patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from cognitively normal older people. Methods This cross-sectional study enrolled 166 participants with Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment and cognitively normal older people. In CogEvo, five types of cognitive tasks were carried out, and the z-scores were used as a composite score. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristics analyses were then carried out to evaluate the usefulness of CogEvo in distinguishing between the three groups. Results CogEvo and Mini-Mental State Examination scores showed excellent correlation, and could significantly differentiate between the Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment and cognitively normal older people groups (Mini-Mental State Examination 20.4 ± 3.5, 25.5 ± 1.6 and 27.6 ± 2.0, respectively; CogEvo: -1.9 ± 0.9, -0.8 ± 0.8 and 0.0 ± 1.0, respectively; both P < 0.001 by analysis of variance). Logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex and years of education significantly differentiated the mild cognitive dysfunction group (mild cognitive impairment plus mild Alzheimer's disease; n = 78) from the cognitively normal group (n = 88) (P < 0.001), whereas receiver operating characteristics analysis showed moderate accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.830). Conclusions These results suggest that CogEvo, a computerized cognitive assessment tool, is useful for evaluating early-stage cognitive impairment. Further studies are required to assess its effectiveness as a combination assessment and training tool. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; 21: 192-196.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Takechi, H., & Yoshino, H. (2021). Usefulness of CogEvo, a computerized cognitive assessment and training tool, for distinguishing patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from cognitively normal older people. Geriatrics & gerontology international. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.14110
Vancouver
Takechi H, Yoshino H. Usefulness of CogEvo, a computerized cognitive assessment and training tool, for distinguishing patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from cognitively normal older people. Geriatrics & gerontology international. 2021. doi:10.1111/ggi.14110. PMID: 33336432.
BibTeX
@article{takechi2021-33336432,
author = {Takechi, H. and Yoshino, H.},
title = {{Usefulness of CogEvo, a computerized cognitive assessment and training tool, for distinguishing patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment from cognitively normal older people}},
journal = {Geriatrics \& gerontology international},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1111/ggi.14110},
pmid = {33336432},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.14110}
}
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
- Results CogEvo and Mini-Mental State Examination scores showed excellent correlation, and could significantly differentiate between the Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment and cognitively normal older people groups (Mini-Mental State Examination 20.4 ± 3.5, 25.5 ± 1.6 and 27.6 ± 2.0, respectively; CogEvo: -1.9 ± 0.9, -0.8 ± 0.8 and 0.0 ± 1.0, respectively; both P < 0.001 by analysis of variance).
- Logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex and years of education significantly differentiated the mild cognitive dysfunction group (mild cognitive impairment plus mild Alzheimer's disease; n = 78) from the cognitively normal group (n = 88) (P < 0.001), whereas receiver operating characteristics analysis showed moderate accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.830).
- Conclusions These results suggest that CogEvo, a computerized cognitive assessment tool, is useful for evaluating early-stage cognitive impairment.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants78
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 57/100
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 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Geriatrics & gerontology international) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 78 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 33336432) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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 “distinguishing”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “distinguishing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.