Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validation study of "Santé-Cerveau", a digital tool for early cognitive changes identification
Lesoil C, Bombois S, Guinebretiere O, Houot M, Bahrami M, Levy M, Genthon R, Bozon F et al.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2023-04-03
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Results AD and non-AD participants were older (mean ± standard deviation (SD): 72.61 ± 6.79 vs 69.91 ± 4.86 years old, p = 0.011) and had a lower MMSE score (Mean difference estimate ± standard error: 1.74 ± 0.14, p < 0.001) than Controls; post-COVID-19 patients were younger than Controls (mean ± SD: 45.07 ± 11.36 years old, p < 0.001). All the computerized SCD-T cognitive tests were significantly associated with their reference version. The clinician-guided algorithm demonstrated 94.4% ± 3.8% sensitivity and 80.5% ± 8.7% specificity, and the machine learning classifier 96.8% ± 3.9% sensitivity and 90.7% ± 5.8% specificity. SCD-T would be useful in primary care to faster refer subjects with significant cognitive impairment (and limit unnecessary referrals) to specialized consultation, improve the AD care pathway and the pre-screening in clinical trials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lesoil, C., Bombois, S., Guinebretiere, O., Houot, M., Bahrami, M., Levy, M., et al. (2023). Validation study of "Santé-Cerveau", a digital tool for early cognitive changes identification. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-023-01204-x
Vancouver
Lesoil C, Bombois S, Guinebretiere O, Houot M, Bahrami M, Levy M, et al. Validation study of "Santé-Cerveau", a digital tool for early cognitive changes identification. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2023. doi:10.1186/s13195-023-01204-x. PMID: 37013590.
BibTeX
@article{lesoil2023-37013590,
author = {Lesoil, C. and Bombois, S. and Guinebretiere, O. and Houot, M. and Bahrami, M. and Levy, M. and Genthon, R. and Bozon, F. and others},
title = {{Validation study of "Santé-Cerveau", a digital tool for early cognitive changes identification}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-023-01204-x},
pmid = {37013590},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-023-01204-x}
}
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 AD and non-AD participants were older (mean ± standard deviation (SD): 72.61 ± 6.79 vs 69.91 ± 4.86 years old, p = 0.011) and had a lower MMSE score (Mean difference estimate ± standard error: 1.74 ± 0.14, p < 0.001) than Controls; post-COVID-19 patients were younger than Controls (mean ± SD: 45.07 ± 11.36 years old, p < 0.001).
- All the computerized SCD-T cognitive tests were significantly associated with their reference version.
- The clinician-guided algorithm demonstrated 94.4% ± 3.8% sensitivity and 80.5% ± 8.7% specificity, and the machine learning classifier 96.8% ± 3.9% sensitivity and 90.7% ± 5.8% specificity.
- SCD-T would be useful in primary care to faster refer subjects with significant cognitive impairment (and limit unnecessary referrals) to specialized consultation, improve the AD care pathway and the pre-screening in clinical trials.
Study details
- Participants64
- Effect sizeor: 1.74; 94.4%; 3.8%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| 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 | 1 / 4 | 64 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 37013590) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 “identification”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “identification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.