Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Utility of Diffusion Modeling of Cogstate Brief Battery Test Performance in Detecting Mild Cognitive Impairment
Mulhauser K, Giordani B, Kavcic V, May LDN, Bhaumik A, Shair S, Votruba K.. Assessment, 2022-01-11
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Cognitive testing data are essential to the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and computerized cognitive testing, such as the Cogstate Brief Battery, has proven helpful in efficiently identifying harbingers of dementia. This study provides a side-by-side comparison of traditional Cogstate outcomes and diffusion modeling of these outcomes in predicting MCI diagnosis. Participants included 257 older adults (160 = normal cognition; 97 = MCI). Results showed that both traditional Cogstate and diffusion modeling analyses predicted MCI diagnosis with acceptable accuracy. Cogstate measures of recognition learning and working memory accuracy and diffusion modeling variable of decision-making efficiency (drift rate) and nondecisional time were most predictive of MCI. While participants with normal cognition demonstrated a change in response caution (boundary separation) when transitioning tasks, participants with MCI did not evidence this change.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mulhauser, K., Giordani, B., Kavcic, V., May, L. D. N., Bhaumik, A., Shair, S., et al. (2023). Utility of Diffusion Modeling of Cogstate Brief Battery Test Performance in Detecting Mild Cognitive Impairment. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211069089
Vancouver
Mulhauser K, Giordani B, Kavcic V, May LDN, Bhaumik A, Shair S, et al. Utility of Diffusion Modeling of Cogstate Brief Battery Test Performance in Detecting Mild Cognitive Impairment. Assessment. 2023. doi:10.1177/10731911211069089. PMID: 35016575.
BibTeX
@article{mulhauser2023-35016575,
author = {Mulhauser, K. and Giordani, B. and Kavcic, V. and May, L. D. N. and Bhaumik, A. and Shair, S. and Votruba, K.},
title = {{Utility of Diffusion Modeling of Cogstate Brief Battery Test Performance in Detecting Mild Cognitive Impairment}},
journal = {Assessment},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1177/10731911211069089},
pmid = {35016575},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211069089}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results showed that both traditional Cogstate and diffusion modeling analyses predicted MCI diagnosis with acceptable accuracy.
- While participants with normal cognition demonstrated a change in response caution (boundary separation) when transitioning tasks, participants with MCI did not evidence this change.
Study details
- Participants257
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Assessment) |
| 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 | 257 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 35016575) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 “detecting”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “detecting”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.