Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validation of a Computerized Cognitive Training Tool to Assess Cognitive Impairment and Enable Differentiation Between Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia
Liu LY, Xing Y, Zhang ZH, Zhang QG, Dong M, Wang H, Cai L, Wang X et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2023-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Age-related cognitive decline is a chronic, progressive process that requires active clinical management as cognitive status changes. Computerized cognitive training (CCT) provides cognitive exercises targeting specific cognitive domains delivered by computer or tablet. Meanwhile, CCT can be used to regularly monitor the cognitive status of patients, but it is not clear whether CCT can reliably assess cognitive ability or be used to diagnose different stages of cognitive impairment. Objective To investigate whether CCT can accurately monitor the cognitive status of patients with cognitive impairment as well as distinguish patients with dementia from patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Method We included 116 patients (42 dementia and 74 MCI) in final analysis. Cognitive ability was assessed by averaging the patient performance on the CCT to determine the Cognitive Index. The validity of the Cognitive Index was evaluated by its correlation with neuropsychological tests, and internal consistency was measured to assess the reliability. Additionally, we determined the diagnostic ability of the Cognitive Index to detect dementia using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results The Cognitive Index was highly correlated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (r = 0.812) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (r = 0.694), indicating good convergent validity, and the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.936, indicating excellent internal consistency. The area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity of the Cognitive Index to diagnose dementia were 0.943, 83.3%, and 91.9%, respectively. Conclusions CCT can be used to assess cognitive status and detect dementia in patients with cognitive impairment.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Liu, L. Y., Xing, Y., Zhang, Z. H., Zhang, Q. G., Dong, M., Wang, H., et al. (2023). Validation of a Computerized Cognitive Training Tool to Assess Cognitive Impairment and Enable Differentiation Between Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-230416
Vancouver
Liu LY, Xing Y, Zhang ZH, Zhang QG, Dong M, Wang H, et al. Validation of a Computerized Cognitive Training Tool to Assess Cognitive Impairment and Enable Differentiation Between Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2023. doi:10.3233/jad-230416. PMID: 37742644.
BibTeX
@article{liu2023-37742644,
author = {Liu, L. Y. and Xing, Y. and Zhang, Z. H. and Zhang, Q. G. and Dong, M. and Wang, H. and Cai, L. and Wang, X. and others},
title = {{Validation of a Computerized Cognitive Training Tool to Assess Cognitive Impairment and Enable Differentiation Between Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.3233/jad-230416},
pmid = {37742644},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-230416}
}
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 The Cognitive Index was highly correlated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (r = 0.812) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (r = 0.694), indicating good convergent validity, and the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.936, indicating excellent internal consistency.
Study details
- Participants116
- Effect size83.3%; 91.9%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 116 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 37742644) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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 “mild-cognitive-impairment”
11 studies in the library carry the topic tag “mild-cognitive-impairment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 11 tagged studies.