Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validity, feasibility, and effectiveness of a voice-recognition based digital cognitive screener for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in community-dwelling older Chinese adults: A large-scale implementation study
Zhao X, Wen H, Xu G, Pang T, Zhang Y, He X, Hu R, Yan M et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2024-02-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction We investigated the validity, feasibility, and effectiveness of a voice recognition-based digital cognitive screener (DCS), for detecting dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in a large-scale community of elderly participants. Methods Eligible participants completed demographic, cognitive, functional assessments and the DCS. Neuropsychological tests were used to assess domain-specific and global cognition, while the diagnosis of MCI and dementia relied on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale. Results Among the 11,186 participants, the DCS showed high completion rates (97.5%) and a short administration time (5.9 min) across gender, age, and education groups. The DCS demonstrated areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUCs) of 0.95 and 0.83 for dementia and MCI detection, respectively, among 328 participants in the validation phase. Furthermore, the DCS resulted in time savings of 16.2% to 36.0% compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montral Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Discussion This study suggests that the DCS is an effective and efficient tool for dementia and MCI case-finding in large-scale cognitive screening. Highlights To our best knowledge, this is the first cognitive screening tool based on voice recognition and utilizing conversational AI that has been assessed in a large population of Chinese community-dwelling elderly. With the upgrading of a new multimodal understanding model, the DCS can accurately assess participants' responses, including different Chinese dialects, and provide automatic scores. The DCS not only exhibited good discriminant ability in detecting dementia and MCI cases, it also demonstrated a high completion rate and efficient administration regardless of gender, age, and education differences. The DCS is economically efficient, scalable, and had a better screening efficacy compared to the MMSE or MoCA, for wider implementation.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zhao, X., Wen, H., Xu, G., Pang, T., Zhang, Y., He, X., et al. (2024). Validity, feasibility, and effectiveness of a voice-recognition based digital cognitive screener for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in community-dwelling older Chinese adults: A large-scale implementation study. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13668
Vancouver
Zhao X, Wen H, Xu G, Pang T, Zhang Y, He X, et al. Validity, feasibility, and effectiveness of a voice-recognition based digital cognitive screener for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in community-dwelling older Chinese adults: A large-scale implementation study. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2024. doi:10.1002/alz.13668. PMID: 38299756.
BibTeX
@article{zhao2024-38299756,
author = {Zhao, X. and Wen, H. and Xu, G. and Pang, T. and Zhang, Y. and He, X. and Hu, R. and Yan, M. and others},
title = {{Validity, feasibility, and effectiveness of a voice-recognition based digital cognitive screener for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in community-dwelling older Chinese adults: A large-scale implementation study}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1002/alz.13668},
pmid = {38299756},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13668}
}
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 Among the 11,186 participants, the DCS showed high completion rates (97.5%) and a short administration time (5.9 min) across gender, age, and education groups.
- The DCS demonstrated areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUCs) of 0.95 and 0.83 for dementia and MCI detection, respectively, among 328 participants in the validation phase.
- Furthermore, the DCS resulted in time savings of 16.2% to 36.0% compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montral Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).
- Discussion This study suggests that the DCS is an effective and efficient tool for dementia and MCI case-finding in large-scale cognitive screening.
- The DCS not only exhibited good discriminant ability in detecting dementia and MCI cases, it also demonstrated a high completion rate and efficient administration regardless of gender, age, and education differences.
Study details
- Participants11,186
- Effect size97.5%; 16.2% to 36.0%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 11,186 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 38299756) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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 “feasibility”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “feasibility”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.